Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp From: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer) Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!wildcard.demon.co.uk!cyber_surfer Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp References: <780156066snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> Organization: The Wildcard Killer Butterfly Breeding Ground Reply-To: cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27 Lines: 24 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 09:36:40 +0000 Message-ID: <780917800snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk> Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.lang.beta:116 comp.lang.lisp:13525 In article jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk "Jeff Dalton" writes: > I thought my article was reasonably clear in context. Maybe not. > Anyway, I was responding to an article that said such things as "the > usual lisp advocate response". I'm still not sure what that means. Was it a reference to the advocacy thread or not? It's a question that asks for a yes or no. > Why not assume I'm talking about something in *this* thread, > namely: Comparison: Beta - Lisp? I am assuming that, but it doesn't make the "advocacy" reference unambigous. Perhaps that's coz I see so many ways of interpreting people's comments. I don't see _this_ thread as one about advocacy. It appears to me to be about Lisp and Beta, but I don't recall seeing anyone trying to "advocate" the use of one language or another. That could be coz I don't see all comparison threads as advocacy threads. It's possible that I missed that aspect, or I just didn't consider it stong enough in this thread. -- http://cyber.sfgate.com/examiner/people/surfer.html