🚀 go-pugleaf

The current discussion of Common Lisp and Eulisp seems to be missing the
most fundamental aspects of the disagreement due to an obsession with
superficial technical issues.  The missing dimensions are the political and
the psychological.

It is evident from Mr. Jacobs messages that the Eulisp design effort has its
true basis in anal retentive neurosis.  Consider the frequent use of sexual
metaphor and innuendo in his messages:

>From: jjacobs@well
>Subject: Re: 3-Lisp
>Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 12:12:50 EDT
>Reply-To: jjacobs@well.UUCP (Jeffrey Jacobs)
>Keywords: Lisp, 3-Lisp, purity, reflection
>
Consider the keyword "purity" in his subject header.  He has barely begun
his ejacluations, yet he has already revealed his latent pederasty for the
world to see.

>For those who have been unable to understand some of my points
>about Common Lisp and how it SHOULD have been done, see the
>EuLisp/ISO draft standards!
>
[In another message, referring to Mr Shebs.]
>He is either unwilling or unable to understand and address the issues.
>
As is usually the case with borderline psychotics, he assumes that anyone
who disagreees with him has misunderstood him.  Unfortunately for him, we
understand him all too well.

>I have read Padget et alia's paper.  Since it has not yet been
>officially published and we were requested not to quote it or discuss
>it before then, I will abide by the authors' wishes and defer discussion
>of the paper _itself_ until it's publication.
>
This obsession with secrecy would normally be considered an indication of
paranoia, but in this case I believe that is caused by a fear of inadequacy
(here quite justified).

>  I will simply state that
>the paper describes a MUCH better **approach** to philosophy
>
He loses touch with reality, forgetting that we are discussing a practical
programming language rather than some misguided attempt to make a
philosophically pure language.

>"a great many holes that need plugging" is grossly misleading.  It
>implies that there are major inconsistencies and/or a lack of solutions
>to problems.  This is simply not the case, in either Padget's paper or
>the proposed ISO/EuLisp standard.  There are open questions, which
>is why the ISO/EuLisp is still a draft, but these are not "holes".
>
See how he is made uncomfortable by the phrase "plugging holes."  His fears
of sexual inadequacy lead him to attempt to redefine the terms by
equivocating.

>The standard points out in graphic detail many of the problems of
>CL, at one point using the word "pornographic" to describe the number
>of ways in which a symbol can be used.
>
Thus we see that a subconscious sexual prudery underlies the entire language
design; Mr. Jacobs is not the only unstable person involved.  The themes of
"purity" and "cleanliness" provide strong confirmation.  A major
subconscious theme of the anal retentive personality is acute uneasiness
with bodily secretions, either literal or symbolic.  Cleanliess thus becomes
an obsession in their diseased minds.

>Mr. Shebs seems to have a basic inability to distinguish between
>forests, trees and shrubs.  
>
Recall that "beating around the bush" is a euphimism for adultry.

>He defends Common LISP with a nearly religious zeal, using
>a style and technique that remind me most of a post-pubescent
>"student of Objectivism."
>
Yes, but the ambience of Eulisp is decidely pre-pubescent.  Not only do the
designers lack the experience of the Common Lisp designers, they are
physically incapable of this experience due to their comittment to obsolete
hardware.  The problem is that in Lisp design (as in other things),
theoretical knowledge is no substitute for experience.  Their attempt to
construct a standard out of youthful enthusiasm and thin air is doomed to
failure.  The so-called "Eulisp standard" is merely a case of premature
ejaculation.  I freely admit the shortcomings of the current Common Lisp
definintion, but it is pure wishful thinking to suppose that a full
specification for a language having the power of Common Lisp can be
constructed in only a year or two.

>His preferred means of 'rebuttal' 
>consist foremost of ad-hominem, and"straw men" arguments.
>
May I point out that you are the innovator in the character asassination
department.  The second half of the rather long message to which I am
replying is entirely devoted to attacking Mr Shebs.  On occasion, he did
lower himself near you level, but on the whole has been an exemplar of
reasonableness compared to you.  If a Common Lisp implementor made an attack
on your person, you would notice it, as it would resemble this message.

>Given all of the above, I find it difficult to take Mr. Shebs seriously.
>When he has something complete that works, learns about
>the basics of debate and argumentation, and learns a little basic
>politeness, I'll reconsider taking him seriously.
>
Rest assured that no serious language designer will take you seriously.  Of
course if you had any constructive criticism to offer, you would be welcome
to join Mr. Shebs in the Common Lisp community.

>Jeffrey M. Jacobs, CONSART Systems Inc.
>P.O. Box 3016, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
>CIS:75076,2603
>BIX:jeffjacobs
>

Rob MacLachlan, Carnegie Mellon University.
Programmer, Spice Lisp project:
  "Making the free world safe for symbolic programming..."