promoting newLISP on USENET

[DekuDekuplex]

newLISP is a fun language with a potential for attracting a wide variety of new enthusiasts, and I feel that it could benefit from wider discussion, including USENET.



I have submitted two http://groups.google.co.jp/group/news.groups.proposals/browse_frm/thread/2390deab5c241e03#">RFD's (Requests For Discussion) for creating a newLISP-specific newsgroup to http://groups.google.co.jp/group/news.groups.proposals/topics">new.groups.proposals, and active http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/2390deab5c241e03#">discussion of my proposal is taking place in http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/topics">comp.lang.lisp.  However, due to a lack of participants who have expressed interest in the idea, the overseers of the Big-8 Group (who oversee creating new newsgroups) are hesitant to create my proposed comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup.



A significant portion of Lisp-related discussion takes place on such newsgroups as comp.lang.lisp, and creating comp.lang.lisp.newlisp could help to popularize newLISP.  The greater a user base newLISP acquires, the greater its chance of thriving.  If anybody here agrees to the idea of helping newLISP spread on the USENET, could you please indicate your opinion by posting in the thread http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/2390deab5c241e03#">"2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp" on comp.lang.lisp.  newLISPers across the Internet, UNITE!



-- Benjamin L. Russell

[cormullion]

Well, I applaud your efforts, and commend your industry!



Just wondering, though, what the main benefits of having a Usenet forum are, compared with this forum (which has the very welcome attention of Lutz - Mr newLISP - himself). I easily keep up to date with the moderate flow using a newsreader or web browser or email reminders - it doesn't seem that much easier to use Google groups or a Usenet reader.



While many Lisp users are already on comp.lang.lisp, I'm not convinced that there are lots of people who use Usenet and comp.lang.lisp that are unaware of newLISP - the occasional inquiry will generally elicit the familiar trickle of abuse and scorn that characterizes the open-mindedness of the Common Lisp zealot. Inquirers are usually directed to this forum, although in a condescending "why do you want to go there? way.



You can tell that I for one won't be wasting my time on comp.lang.lisp... :)

newLISPers across the Internet, UNITE!

True - but perhaps we already are! :)

[Jeff]

I certainly appreciate the reasoning behind it, but I don't think that newlisp is in common enough use to warrant its own usenet group any more than arc does.  Certainly both have a small enough audience (at the moment) that they could be discussed in comp.lang.lisp (or perhaps scheme for arc, perhaps [although I haven't the faintest idea on that one]).



comp.lang.lisp is not, after all, comp.lang.commonlisp :)

[DekuDekuplex]

I certainly appreciate the reasoning behind it, but I don't think that newlisp is in common enough use to warrant its own usenet group any more than arc does.  Certainly both have a small enough audience (at the moment) that they could be discussed in comp.lang.lisp (or perhaps scheme for arc, perhaps [although I haven't the faintest idea on that one]).



comp.lang.lisp is not, after all, comp.lang.commonlisp :)

In that case, how about establishing a gateway between this Web forum and a USENET group?  This has actually been http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups.proposals/msg/9f0ffeaba0cb86b4">suggestedon news.groups.proposals.

I've gradually come to think it's worth the price anyways.

I've been on UseNet since the early 1980s and while

groups come and go and ISPs come and go UseNet

survives. It even has archives that survive.  I've also been

on web boards since the late 1990s and they tend to

come and go without archives.



It will of course be resisted by old timers but I think doing

gateways between web boards and newsgroups can give

the advantages of both to discussion groups and give new

life to newsgroup traffic.  It has the potential to be as large

an impact as the large ISPs arrriving on UseNet and would

definitely be a strange experience.



I would love to see the newlisp group be an experiment to

see how it works.  I for one expect old time UseNet folks

to complain about context quoting and such and figure it

will be a part of the exercise.



The main objection to the group has been traffic currently

on UseNet.  Gateway would handle that.  Cooperation

would be needed with the web board owner.  Existing

software would be needed or new software written.

Would anybody be interested in this idea?



-- Benjamin L. Russell

[newdep]

when we would have been back in 1988 .. yes i would have perhpas voted ;-)

[unixtechie]

Unfortunately, the two long-timers on this forum fail to appreciate one important factor, that of VISIBILITY and CONNECTEDNESS.



In a different place I have been an active participant in a very tightly connected "universe" of blogs. The site  is not just a hosting of individual blogs, and not simply allows visitors' commentaries in those blogs, but CONNECTS them through  a "friends reel" of a sort. With a huge mass of users this blogging engine becomes a qualitatively different beast, completely different from pseudo-blogs by the likes of university professors (which do not typically allow even commentaries) or political semi-official propaganda men.

Connectedness turns the site into a kind of universe in which news propagate according to new laws (which I tried to figure out and plot as huge graphs with hundreds of thousands nodes).



Newlisp is vastly underappreciated because it LACKS VISIBILITY.



I (it seems) convinced Lutz to advertise on http://www.freshmeat.net">www.freshmeat.net, the largest site for open source software, but still, in spite of my prodding, he does not do it aggressively (i.e. with each addition of library scripts etc); he was even talking about splitting announcements in two, one for newlisp proper, and the other one for libs.



Now we see the sort of semi-resistance from newlispers who got used to cloistered existence, and a  tiny handful of friends on a remote and disconnected forum.

Nope. When my blog (general interest, non-programming) on the site I talked about reached 1700 subscribers, I became a news organization of my own and by making searches I could track the texts I created and see how much they spread over the Internet and are amplified with lots of people picking the topic and developing it further.



Living among an established community of enthusiasts, in a central place where each newcomer would think of coming first, rather than wandering blindly and hitting coincidentally, and being a well-connected node in the graph of the Small World (a technical term in graph theory) the Web is gives a QUALITATIVELY different, non-linear increase in propagation.

Check some popular explanation of Small World properties and the different roles of nodes depending of their connectedness, and you'll see it for yourself.



So, whether as a separate newsgroup or as a constant presence in the most populated LISP group on Usenet, newlisp should exist, and I would applaud the efforts of the first poster and fully agree with his appreciation of newlisp as having a good potential to become very popular scripting language due to its size and self-containedness on top of the powerful capabilities of lisp.



/*

As a sort of illustration - this forum did not allow me to insert images directly - check the two animated GIFs, side by side, in one of my (smaller) blogs. Those illustrate the "ideal" propagation of a news item on a full graph, which looks like an explosion, and on a graph with well-connected nodes eliminated.

That shows you visually how different behaviour of these two types of nodes is

http://muzyka-sfer.livejournal.com/1350.html">http://muzyka-sfer.livejournal.com/1350.html

*/

[newdep]

Well I think if people want to visualize newlisp or promote newlisp more

they absolutly should do so. I only think that usenet isn't the way to

promote newlisp. But then again Im not an enthousiast of usenet and

never was..Same goes actualy for IRC.. I wont be hanging out there, but

others might ofcourse..



Personal promotion of newlisp is by using it in reallife environment

on highlevel servers and developing tools with newlisp that run on these.

Not only on our company systems but worldwide. The advantage of this

is, beside the fact that its newlisp, that users need to learn to maintain the

tools/applications, So they have to learn newlisp if they want to adjust the

tools/applications..(Gotja! ;-)



Oh yes..wearing the T-Shirt when going abroad ;-)

[DekuDekuplex]

Unfortunately, the two long-timers on this forum fail to appreciate one important factor, that of VISIBILITY and CONNECTEDNESS.



[...]



Newlisp is vastly underappreciated because it LACKS VISIBILITY.



[...]



So, whether as a separate newsgroup or as a constant presence in the most populated LISP group on Usenet, newlisp should exist, and I would applaud the efforts of the first poster and fully agree with his appreciation of newlisp as having a good potential to become very popular scripting language due to its size and self-containedness on top of the powerful capabilities of lisp.



[...]

Thank you for your support.



If you feel strongly that newLISP should exist either "as a separate newsgroup" or "as a constant presence in the most populated LISP group on Usenet," could you possibly voice this opinion, as a contributor from the newLISP Fan Club, in the thread "http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/2390deab5c241e03#">2nd RFD: comp.lang.lisp.newlisp" on comp.lang.lisp?  The RFD (Request For Discussion) that I submitted there is in danger of dying because of only one supporter there, and the current consensus there is that, since attracting interest from a Web board to USENET seems to be almost impossible and there is insufficient current discussion of newLISP on USENET, the RFD should be withdrawn and the proposal given up.



(A discussion is also proceeding in http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/browse_thread/thread/1de046337f8243c2#">the same thread on news.groups, so simply replying to all groups in a post in that thread should also registered your support there as well.)



Your support in that thread can help realize a newLISP-specific comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup.

Personal promotion of newlisp is by using it in reallife environment

on highlevel servers and developing tools with newlisp that run on these.

Not only on our company systems but worldwide. The advantage of this

is, beside the fact that its newlisp, that users need to learn to maintain the

tools/applications, So they have to learn newlisp if they want to adjust the

tools/applications..(Gotja! ;-)



Oh yes..wearing the T-Shirt when going abroad ;-)

The difficulty here is that, as a translator, I am not in a position to run it on a corporate server, and that since my company does not develop software, unless there is some ready-made application useful for helping to run the corporate intranet, my company is not very likely to use newLISP.



However, I still think that newLISP is a fun tool to use, and that further discussion of newLISP anywhere can help to attract new users, who are likely to write more interesting applications.  The more applications become available, the more newLISP is likely to become even more useful and fun to use.



Any programming language requires a certain critical number of users in order to survive.  Every new user who uses the language helps to ensure its survival.  I think that newLISP has certain merits as an alternative to such languages as Common Lisp for users new to programming:  a small, fast, easy to use GUI-based IDE with built-in REPL; a lower learning curve than some other dialects of Lisp; a variety of easy-to-understand demonstration programs packaged into the IDE; and ORO memory management.  The more users there are who see newLISP, the more users there will likely be who will use newLISP.  Broadening the userbase is unlikely to hurt the language; instead, it is very likely to help ensure that it prospers.



-- Benjamin L. Russell

[Jeff]

Unfortunately, the two long-timers on this forum fail to appreciate one important factor, that of VISIBILITY and CONNECTEDNESS.

No one said that newlisp should not be promoted. We all think that more projects should use newlisp and that it is an elegant, pragmatic language. What we don't all think is that it needs its own usenet group. Hell, even common lisp has to share.

Newlisp is vastly underappreciated because it LACKS VISIBILITY.

This is certainly true. The best way to promote a language is to ensure that there are a large number of available libraries and projects using the language. Programmers are not as susceptible to marketing as CIOs are. They tend to use what they find is the most useful and the most interesting, and, often, what gets the job done in the fewest lines of code.

I (it seems) convinced Lutz to advertise on http://www.freshmeat.net">www.freshmeat.net, the largest site for open source software, but still, in spite of my prodding, he does not do it aggressively (i.e. with each addition of library scripts etc); he was even talking about splitting announcements in two, one for newlisp proper, and the other one for libs.

So what? It's a language, not a religion or political campaign. The fact that it is on freshmeat and sourceforge means that it will come up in searches and new folks will find it.

Now we see the sort of semi-resistance from newlispers who got used to cloistered existence, and a  tiny handful of friends on a remote and disconnected forum.

It is hard not to respond sarcastically to this one, so I won't.

So, whether as a separate newsgroup or as a constant presence in the most populated LISP group on Usenet, newlisp should exist, and I would applaud the efforts of the first poster and fully agree with his appreciation of newlisp as having a good potential to become very popular scripting language due to its size and self-containedness on top of the powerful capabilities of lisp.

newlisp is a powerful scripting language. It does not compete because there are not a large number of projects written in newlisp.  There are not many users promoting it to their coworkers.



There are literally hundreds of scripting languages out there, and newlisp is often looked at as a niche language, as are all lisps. Perhaps the better strategy would be for you to start a large, visible project and write it in newlisp. Other programmers might be more inclined to learn a new language if there were more visible rewards.



Successful promotion comes from an active community, not a community of activists.

[HPW]

Successful promotion comes from an active community, not a community of activists.

Good one!



;-)

[cormullion]

The discussion over at news.groups quickly lost me, but I was interested by your (Benjamin/dekuduplex) comment here:

[...] I had still been thinking about whether to

continue with this RFC because of inconsistencies in statements by the

creator of newLISP in admitting whether a bug (now fixed) really was a

bug.  When I proposed the first RFC, this issue had not yet existed.

Such inconsistencies can possibly change the value of the programming

language to USENET in my opinion.  If the creator of a programming

language says that a bug is not really a bug, and then turns around

and fixes the "bug," is that creator trustworthy?

You seem to be saying here that you don't or didn't think there should be a comp.lang.lisp.newlisp group because Lutz is either untrustworthy or can sometimes change his mind? This I don't understand at all.



I'll think I'll stick to my cloisters...

[DekuDekuplex]

The discussion over at news.groups quickly lost me, but I was interested by your (Benjamin/dekuduplex) comment here:

[...] I had still been thinking about whether to

continue with this RFC because of inconsistencies in statements by the

creator of newLISP in admitting whether a bug (now fixed) really was a

bug.  When I proposed the first RFC, this issue had not yet existed.

Such inconsistencies can possibly change the value of the programming

language to USENET in my opinion.  If the creator of a programming

language says that a bug is not really a bug, and then turns around

and fixes the "bug," is that creator trustworthy?

You seem to be saying here that you don't or didn't think there should be a comp.lang.lisp.newlisp group because Lutz is either untrustworthy or can sometimes change his mind? This I don't understand at all.



I'll think I'll stick to my cloisters...

While I applaud Lutz's fixing of the bug, it struck me as rather surprising that he http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=14973#14973">replied at first as follows:

In the newLISP-GS Java front-end the bottom monitor is only a minimal terminal implementation in a Java Swing text area. Only designed for simple one-liners and not designed to be as comfortable as a shell window (which on Mac OS X and other Unix also does tab-expansion to built-in functions).

When I http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f1558571c2d5fef5">discussed this bug on comp.lang.lisp, Pascal J. Bourguignon replied as follows:

There must be  a fatal flaw in this system, if you have to tag your

multiline expressions with an horror such as [cmd][/cmd].



The algorithms to read expressions, whatever the number of lines, have

been know and implemented in Lisp for 50 years.  Perhaps you should

try a Lisp that includes the teachings of history?

This made me feel like an idiot, so I was just about to conclude that I should withdraw my RFD, when suddenly Lutz added a http://www.alh.net/newlisp/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=14982#14982">follow-up as follows:

The problem with [cmd][/cmd] tags in the newLISP-GS Java front-end has been fixed. Download a new guiserver.jar from:



http://www.newlisp.org/downloads/development/guiserver.jar">http://www.newlisp.org/downloads/develo ... server.jar">http://www.newlisp.org/downloads/development/guiserver.jar



and install on Win32 as: $PROGRAMFILES/newlisp/guiserver.jar



or install on Mac OS X and other Unix as: /usr/share/newlisp/guiserver.jar

While I very much appreciate Lutz's fixing the bug, what bugged (pardon the pun) me was the fact that he implied that it wasn't a bug at first, and then as soon as I tried to come up with a satisfactory response to Bourguignon's claim that there "must be a fatal flaw in this system" on comp.lang.lisp, he claimed that it was in fact a "problem" (i.e., a "bug").



This made my intended position on comp.lang.lisp untenable, and forced me completely to rethink my response to Bourguignon's claim.  It also made me feel very embarrassed in front of Bourguignon.



What was I to respond then to Bourguignon?  These users are Lisp geeks who just love to make others look silly at the slightest logical inconsistency, but they also often have many insightful things to say, so I want to continue participating on comp.lang.lisp, but without putting myself in an awkward position vis–à–vis the other participants.



If I replied,

"Yes, you're right, it was a flaw in this system, and although Lutz first said that it wasn't a bug, he then changed his mind and fixed it."

then Bourguignon would probably have replied,

"Well, it's good that it was fixed, but why did he change his mind?  Why don't you avoid a language where the designer first argues that a bug isn't a bug and then changes his mind and says that it is indeed a bug, and try a Lisp that includes the teachings of history?"

thus making my position very awkward.



On the other hand, if I replied,

"No, you're wrong, there never was any fatal flaw in this system in the first place, as Lutz has already explained, but the problem has been fixed."

then Bourguignon would probably have replied,

"Well, if there never was any flaw to begin with, then why was it fixed?  Either there wasn't a bug, in which case nothing needed to have been fixed in the first place, or there was one, in which case there was a logical inconsistency involved.  As I said, the algorithms to read expressions, whatever the number of lines, have been know and implemented in Lisp for 50 years.  Why don't you avoid this kind of problem and try a Lisp that includes the teachings of history?"

thus again making my position very awkward.



Therefore, in order to avoid handing additional touchés to such posters as Bourguignon while continuing to participate in the interesting, if geeky, discussions on such newsgroups as comp.lang.lisp, I became unsure if it was a good idea to create a comp.lang.lisp.newlisp newsgroup.  If I then went ahead and the newsgroup got created, and a similar problem happened again, then either Bourguignon or a similar participant (most of the participants on comp.lang.lisp behave similarly) would have argued similar and most likely claimed a touché, and I would have had to run and hide my head in a bag (perhaps with a dragonfly on it and labelled "newLISP") ;) .



In fact, as a sequel, something right now is happening in another http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/199e4fc281258b6a#">thread in comp.lang.lisp.  Eager to further discussion of newLISP in hopes of getting comp.lang.lisp.newlisp created, I came upon a plan of comparing newLISP with Clojure, and getting the participants on comp.lang.lisp to discuss newLISP in this discussion:

Here are some observations of both newLISP and Clojure, based upon

features listed on their sites, together with some questions on

Clojure:



1.  newLISP comes with a DrScheme-style GUI-based IDE complete with

definitions and interactions panels, whereas apparently Clojure does

not.  Does Clojure have a superior editing environment?



2.  Clojure does not have first-class continuations.  Unfortunately, I

discovered recently that neither does newLISP.  I wish to study

continuations in PLAI (see

http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04-26/">http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publication ... 007-04-26/">http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/2007-04-26/),

as well as to continue studying SICP (see

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/">http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/).  Is this feasible using Clojure?



3.  newLISP has ORO (One Reference Only) automatic memory management

(see http://www.newlisp.org/MemoryManagement.html">http://www.newlisp.org/MemoryManagement.html), in which "Memory

is not marked or reference-counted. Instead, a decision whether to

delete a newly created memory object is made right after the memory

object is created."  Does Clojure have a superior garbage collection

mechanism?



4.  I wish to study tail call optimization in SICP.  Since Clojure

"uses the Java calling conventions, it cannot, and does not, make

[...] tail call optimization guarantees" (see

http://clojure.org/functional_programming">http://clojure.org/functional_programming, under "Recursive Looping").

I am not sure about newLISP in this regard (the newLISP Manual and

Reference (see http://www.newlisp.org/downloads/manual_frame.html">http://www.newlisp.org/downloads/manual_frame.html))

does not discuss tail call optimization.  Is there a way to study tail

call optimization, as discussed in SICP, using Clojure?



5.  Since I live in Japan, where the dominant language is Japanese, I

wish to be able to use Japanese characters in my programs, thus

necessitating Unicode support.  newLISP supports Unicode (see "newLISP

- Features" at http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?Features">http://www.newlisp.org/index.cgi?Features, under

"International").  I could not find any references to Unicode support

for Clojure.  Does Clojure support Unicode?

Sure enough, another comp.lang.lisp participant, this time Tamas K Papp, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/0d2a9b7149fbd2b0">replied as follows:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:07:10 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell wrote:

> There seems to be more discussion of Clojure than newLISP on USENET

> these days, even though both are minor Lisp dialects with similar goals,



Similar goals?  The creators of Clojure constructed a decent* language,

the same cannot be said of newLisp.



(* I don't want to get into a CL vs Clojure debate here.  Arguing

about the relative merits of vanilla and chocolate ice cream is

pointless when the third alternative is batshit).



[...]



> programmers.  Alternatively, perhaps Clojure has certain advantages over

> newLISP that I am unaware of.



Eg closures?  Lexical scope?

So Tamas K Papp was claiming that he because he thought that newLISP did not have closures or lexical scope, comparing CL and Clojure with newLISP was like comparing "vanilla and chocolate ice cream" with "batshit."



Apparently, one participant, Kazimir Majorinc, thought this to be too much, so he actually tried to http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/cd4829dbe257ebf0">argue in favor of newLISP as follows:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:24:48 +0100,



namekuseijin <namekusei> wrote:

> newLisp is yet another scripting language with lots of wrappers around

> common programming APIs.  Clojure is a full-fledged language and

> implementation, also benefiting from Java frameworks and tools.



> newLisp doesn't even have lexical scope, thus their list of features

> is more interested in showing immediate practical stuff, like IDEs and

> library-support, that will cater to pragmatic programmers but won't

> impress folks interested in new language design ideas.  Besides, I

> don't like the authoritative tone in the choice of name.



I have to disagree with that. I started using Newlisp after I

used other Lisp dialects few years, mostly because of few

code=data related features not availiable in other languages:



* Unrestricted eval that works for local and global variables and

   doesn't require addional running time.



   (In almost all Lisp implementation, code containing eval is many

   times (up to 1500+ times) slower than same code out of eval)



* Dynamic scope. Because of that, in Newlisp one can define

   functions equally powerful as macros - for example, I defined

   function IF - standard example why one need macros in some

   Lisp dialects.



   Newlisp supports lexical scope in the form of contexts.



* Newlisp macros are actually fexprs, i.e. fexprs are not expanded

   during compile time, but evaluated during during runtime. Fexprs

   are simpler, and slower in normal code, but faster if used inside

   of eval (macroexpansion inside of eval is very slow).



   Additionally, Newlisp macros are the first class citizens, so

   one can use these as values, apply or map during runtime.



   Macros can be anonymous.



* Functions and macros evaluate to their own definitions,

   so one can not only use, apply and map functions (and macros)

   during runtime, but he can also analyze and mutate functions

   (and macros) during runtime.



These are not just any improvements, but improvements in

metaprogramming, code=data paradigm, and that paradigm is

specificity of Lisp. These features are not emphasized in

the introductory materials, but it is decision of the author

to present the language primarily as simple and practical,

suitable and interesting for wide number of programmers.

The majority of potential users are not primarily interested

in fexpr vs macros issue, but in practical side.



There are many other innovations, like FOOP - functional

object oriented programming, unification with occur check,

regular expressions, basic statistical functions ...



I agree that name is not the most fortunate, but it is not

that important. Generally, author of Newlisp is very helpful

person, and frequently accept requests for features.

Unfortunately, then he got http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/be2edfff60691298">flamed so badly by Tamas K Papp that he was basically reduced to a steaming cinder:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:54:57 +0100, Kazimir Majorinc wrote:

> I have to disagree with that. I started using Newlisp after I used other

> Lisp dialects few years, mostly because of few code=data related

> features not availiable in other languages:



> * Unrestricted eval that works for local and global variables and

>    doesn't require addional running time.



>    (In almost all Lisp implementation, code containing eval is many

>    times (up to 1500+ times) slower than same code out of eval)



That may be because newLisp is interpreted and everything must be slow

as hell.  I doubt that eval is slower in modern CL implementations

compared to newLisp, it is just that compiled code is so much faster

than the latter.



Next time you need to go somewhere, just crawl on your belly.  That

way you will not lose a lot of speed when you have to stop at a

traffic light.



> [ ... other similarly idiotic statements snipped ... ]



> These are not just any improvements, but improvements in

> metaprogramming, code=data paradigm, and that paradigm is specificity of

> Lisp. These features are not emphasized in the introductory materials,



Whenever you don't have a clue, just say the magic word "paradigm",

possibly multiple times.  newLisp paradigmatically integrates the

code-data meta-paradigm paradigmatic sub-paradigm paradigm, etc.



> but it is decision of the author to present the language primarily as

> simple and practical, suitable and interesting for wide number of

> programmers. The majority of potential users are not primarily

> interested in fexpr vs macros issue, but in practical side.



The author(s) of newLisp obviously didn't have a clue about language

design, and could not implement a compiler, closures, and a zillion

other things.  Trying to sell these as a "features" is rather weak.



I hope that you realize that your attempts to push newLisp are rather

pathetic.

Additionally, Raffael Cavallaro http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/86689c594142a365">wrote as follows:

On Mar 26, 7:48 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp> wrote:



> (* I don't want to get into a CL vs Clojure debate here.  Arguing

> about the relative merits of vanilla and chocolate ice cream is

> pointless when the third alternative is batshit).



You insensitive clod! batshit ^h^h^h^h newlisp is Benjamin's favorite

flavor!

Faced with many arguments arguing that newLISP wasn't worth a newsgroup, and no support from the newLISP Fan Club members in response, I then had to issue a disclaimer against Cavallaro's statement:

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT), Raffael Cavallaro



<raffaelcavall> wrote:

>On Mar 26, 7:48?am, Tamas K Papp <tkp> wrote:



>> (* I don't want to get into a CL vs Clojure debate here. ?Arguing

>> about the relative merits of vanilla and chocolate ice cream is

>> pointless when the third alternative is batshit).



>You insensitive clod! batshit ^h^h^h^h newlisp is Benjamin's favorite

>flavor!



Whatever gave you that idea?  I was trying to have a newLISP newsgroup

created initially because I had discovered a bug (now fixed) in its

evaluation of multi-line statements in its GUI REPL, and just wanted a

dialect-specific newsgroup where I could discuss the issue and have a

high probability of getting feedback specifically from newLISP users.

I hadn't wanted to try this newsgroup at first because this newsgroup

hadn't seemed frequented by newLISP users; most of the discussion

seemed to focus on Common Lisp.  I also hadn't wanted to post that

topic on the newLISP Web board because I didn't like that kind of

interface and wanted to write using my newsreader.



Then it seemed that in order to have the newsgroup created, I needed

to promote discussion, which required promoting the topic, which

required promoting the language, so I wound up promoting what I could

about the language.  Little did I realize what I was getting myself

into at first....

Of course, Tamas K Papp then http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/808aaf2cc9979344">seized upon this opportunity to try to claim victory:

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:25:41 +0900, Benjamin L. Russell wrote:

> Then it seemed that in order to have the newsgroup created, I needed to

> promote discussion, which required promoting the topic, which required

> promoting the language, so I wound up promoting what I could about the

> language.  Little did I realize what I was getting myself into at

> first....



Thanks for admitting that you are only trying to generate discussion

to have a newLisp ng created, not because you had something to

discuss.  I have bookmarked this article, and will be happy to refer

to it when the issue of a newLisp ng is raised again (if ever).



I hope that you realize that all your attempts to generate gratuitous

"discussion" about newLisp will be recognized as an abuse of Usenet,

and your proposals to create a newLisp ng will be judged accordingly.

Well, maybe Papp thinks that he has won, but this is not the final straw.  I have http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/52c64d24bd8c5516">responded as follows:

On 27 Mar 2009 08:51:39 GMT, Tamas K Papp <tkp> wrote:



>[...]



"Abuse of Usenet?"  Riiight.  When I posted a message to

news.groups.proposals urging creation of a comp.lang.lisp.newlisp

newsgroup, one respondent wrote back that "guiding the discussion" was

one of my "duties of a proponent," as follows:



> > > I also haven't checked the lisp newsgroup to know what sort

> > > of stumping/PR you've done there.



> > I haven't done much there lately.



> Maybe you don't understand the duties of a proponent.  Follow the discussion

> on appropriate groups.  Guide the discussion.  Do supporting PR for the group.

> All during the RFD process.  After the vote then look for at least one user on

> each of the major NSPs and get them to request the group be added.  Be a

> user on at least one NSP and make the request yourself.  Make sure the group

> gets some traffic in the first year by posting on topic at least monthly.



So by following the advice of one of the respondents on new.groups.proposals for "guiding the discussion" in fulfilling my "duties of a proponent," I was committing "an abuse of Usenet, and [my] proposals to create a newLisp ng will be judged accordingly."



Riiight.  If I don't "guid[e] the discussion," then I get a private e-mail message from a member of news.groups.proposals accusing me of not "fulfilling my duties as a proponent," and if I do, then I get a response on this newsgroup that that constitutes "an abuse of Usenet."



I have bookmarked this article, and will be happy to refer to it if any issue of your ever creating any newsgroup is raised (if ever).

-- Benjamin L. Russell

[Kazimir Majorinc]

I do not worry about "flames." Fanatics have their psychological reasons, but they are not really important or harmful. Behind them, there are many people who do not discuss that much, but they have some interest in the subject, and they are able to recognize the quality of information. I know because I see the traffic on my Internet sites and how it changes dependently on my activities. I think that occasional, balanced use of existing communicating channels has sense.

[cormullion]

Thanks for the entertaining post, Benjamin!



I suspect some of the initial confusion was caused by the failure of [cmd] and [/cmd] to work at all in newLISP-GS together with the fact that the standard newLISP terminal doesn't allow multiline entry without the use of [cmd][/cmd] anyway. The latter is probably considered a serious omission on its own, and when there's a bug there as well... I think it's quite possible that Lutz was talking first about the motivation for having the [cmd] feature and then later realised that there was also a bug in the implementation. Or conflated the two. Somehow I doubt he tried to mislead or confuse. But I'm not he.



To be honest, I'd probably welcome multiline text entry in newLISP - like sqlite or something - even if loaded as a module or command-line switch. I use an editor most of the time, so I don't really notice its lack at the moment. And although a solid multi-line interpreter add-on is beyond my powers to write, I don't think it's impossible.

I also hadn't wanted to post that topic on the newLISP Web board because I didn't like that kind of interface and wanted to write using my newsreader.

Sorry, I must have missed this motivation for creating a newsgroup for newLISP, which seems a good one.



Back to the batcave...

[m35]

I've got to hand it to you DekuDekuplex (Benjamin) for dealing with such volatile environments to promote this small but convenient language.



I sometimes delve into such environments, but that's mostly to chuckle at the usual http://xkcd.com/386/">absurdity of it all. ;)