🚀 go-pugleaf

[Tom Christiansen]

|   I've been thinking about this new universal scripting language that RMS
|   proposes, the one that's supposed to obsolete all other scripting
|   languages in existence.

it was Ousterhout or whatever that Tcl guy's name is that used the phrase
"universal scripting langauge", Tom.  you know that.  why misrepresent the
facts?  RMS doesn't want it to be universal.  he said just that.  he has
made no argument to the effect that he wants his own language to be
universal either.  why do you lie?

|   He would like this language to be used by any application wanting
|   embeddability or extensibility will employ.

barring a possible misunderstanding of this garbled sentence, he (RMS) has
talked only about the GNU project, Tom.  why do you misrepresent the facts?

|   If the language is good for generating and parsing things like
|   .Xdefaults or Makefiles or .cliprc files, fine, but if this just forces
|   sysadmins to code in scheme or rush or something, they'll just laugh at
|   you.  Well, until they're FORCED to use it, at which point they'll kick
|   and scream for something easier.

I have reread his proposals, and I don't find anything about config files
or sysadmins forced to code in _anything_.  why do you misrepresent the
facts?

|   But telling someone they must use language GNU Blah for an extension
|   language, well, get real: it really just isn't going to happen.

did RMS say you _must_ use it?  how do you know it "just isn't going to
happen"?  seems to me a lot people _want_ to use Emacs LISP.

|   GNU only succeeds when there's a technical niche to fill, not when
|   there's a political need to fill.

then let it succeed, instead of interfering with your political nonsense!

|   Can you imagine all dot files and config files and macro files and rc
|   files all being in one syntax?  This will never happen.

who's talking about this, Tom?  I have never heard this mentioned before
you start making a lot of noise about it.  you imply that this is RMS's
position, and that's misrepresenting the facts.

|   In summary, I truly fear you're wasting a great deal of time attempting
|   to create something no one wants or needs badly enough to put up with.
|   In other words: it's not broken, so don't try to fix it.

_you_ don't think it's broken, Tom.  RMS _does_.  RMS has proposed a
solution to the problem he sees.  what have _you_ done?  "I don't see a
problem.  there ain't no problem.  anyone who says there's a problem is
wasting his time, and better shut up."

you want _technical_ discussions, Tom?  I don't see anything technical in
your article at all.  just a lot of opinionated nonsense about what the
whole world will do if they got the choice you want to bar them from, even
more scare tactics and the universal crybaby's "mommy, he's gonna make me
use scheme. waaaaah!"  that looks and feels so much like _fear_ that any
other conclusions about your reaction are irrelevant.

sometimes, it _is_ the messenger that's the problem, especially when that
messenger is lying, misrepresenting facts, has a strong political agenda
that destroys his vision, and kicks up a lot of dust, and on top of it
forgets any message that he was supposed to carry.  maybe you should go
back to messenger school, Tom?

and keep your references to whatever personal mail you get to yourself.
anybody could claim anything with reference to personal mail.  and we
already know you're lying when you feel like it, so why should anybody
trust you on it?

I suggest you adopt your own advice, and start getting _technical_, Tom.

#<Erik>
--
Microsoft is not the answer.  Microsoft is the question.  NO is the answer.