Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.ruhr-uni-bochum.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-ber1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!unlisys!btnet-feed2!btnet!netcom.net.uk!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-paris.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!erkyrath
From: erkyrath@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
Subject: Re: Questionable Languages & Compilers
Message-ID: <erkyrathE2suzD.GMJ@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <32b72f97@beachyhd.demon.co.uk> <1996Dec19.165314.307@wcc.govt.nz> <59cimp$2hf@life.ai.mit.edu> <59f5q8$v6l@bartlet.df.lth.se> <59fos3$lmq@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:23:37 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: erkyrath@netcom3.netcom.com

David Baggett (dmb@lf.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
> The point is, we don't pay attention to ill-informed praise or criticism of
> IF works, so why should we treat the tools differently?  As (I believe)
> Gareth said, this isn't Kindergarten.

On the contrary -- ill-informed criticism of IF works provokes the 
biggest flames around here. Not so much specific works, but the 
philosophy of IF authorship (or reasons why there shouldn't be any. 
Philosophy, I mean.) (And, of course, for each such flame there's someone 
who thinks the criticism was *well*-informed.)

I know I've filled your shorts with napalm on the subject in the past, so 
don't look so ingenuous. :-)

I play as nice as I can, but I also like playing shishkebob when I find 
something that deserves it. I don't like to let statements I strongly 
disagree with go by.

As to your other posts, I am very interested by your comments on 
features of IF languages, and will reply in that thread separately. 
Squirm and twist all you like -- you're just not ill-informed enough 
about programming languages to flame. Sorry.

--Z

-- 

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
