Why not to give up (off-topic)

On 2012-03-19, Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2012-03-19 11:28:46 +0000, Tamas Papp said:
>> Instead of lamenting about usenet dying etc, I would rather look for a
>> practical solution.
>
> I'm uninterested in a moderated forum *becuase it's moderated*. You
> are, of course, free to start one: go do that if you are not happy here.

It's not really moderated if just postings from non-subscribers are held
in the queue.

That is basically needed so that the list doesn't relay spam.

Mailing lists conversations /can't/ be moderated because not all the traffic
goes through the mailing list.

The real conversation goes directly among the mailboxes of those who
are on the cc: or to: header of the thread.

The mailing list is just another recipient, in the loop with a CC.

Anyway, that's how it works with a nicely configured mailing list which doesn't
rewrite headers.

On 2012-03-19, Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Instead of lamenting about usenet dying etc, I would rather look for a
>> practical solution. I still don't understand why a mailing list with
>> the following properties would be unsatisfactory for you:
>>
>> 1. subscribers can post,
>> 2. non-subscribers can post, but messages have to be approved by a moderator,
>> 3. the list is available on GMANE, so you can keep using your favorite newsreader.
>>
>> This seems to work just fine for many groups.
>
> It is also possible to created a moderated newsgroup.

That is not the same because a moderated newsgroup is actually moderated
for all postings, not just for new subscribers.

On 19/03/2012 3:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> Lists should accept e-mail from anyone. Filtering can be done without
> annoying registration requirements.

But not receiving the list messages. For that, obviously, you have to
subscribe. And until you do that, you've nothing to reply to. And only
trolls and spammers do nothing but start new threads.

Methinks you've put the cart before the horse, Kaz.

> I.e. if you post to the mailing list, you must read it. Even if you are not
> actually interested in the mailing list, just in your particular conversation
> with it!

People who do that on newsgroups, rather than lurk for a while and
understand the group as a whole, are commonly called "trolls". (A few
are just "clueless n00bs".)

Nicolas Neuss <lastname@scipolis.de> writes:

> Hmm, I think you simply need to accept that you have to killfile some
> people, and also drop following some threads. Then the ratio of useful
> information gathered to time spent with reading comp.lang.lisp is not
> that bad.

And post on cll (lisp related articles) instead of (or at least in
addition to) on blogs or web forum or redit or stackoverflow, etc, to
increase S/N.


--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

RockB <rockbarssoom@no.spam.please> writes:

> I don't think he thinks LOOP is evil. It's just ugly. Syntaxy; non-Lispy.

Then just write your own iteration macros or use some library.

(defmacro while (cond &body body) `(do () ((not ,cond)) ,@body))

is one of the first macros I wrote (so that I could "port" some emacs
lisp code to CL).

So I can write:

(let ((i 0))
(while (< i 10)
(print (incf i))))

instead of:

(let ((i 0))
(loop while (< i 10) do
(print (incf i))))


That's the reason why WJ is wrong. He's right that there are other ways
to do loops, he's wrong to argue that against a lisp language! Even in
C++ they found ways to implement new loops, such as boost foreach!

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

On 2012-03-19, Hydrangea <hydrangea393@foo.mail.quuzzle.edu> wrote:
> On 19/03/2012 3:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Lists should accept e-mail from anyone. Filtering can be done without
>> annoying registration requirements.
>
> But not receiving the list messages. For that, obviously, you have to
> subscribe.

What does your nonsensical cluelessness about mailing lists have to do with
Lisp, Hydrangea?

I'm only seeing your posting because slrn reported no new messages (other than
1 killed) and just for fun I used "ESC 2 space" to read a few recent
messages in the newsgroup view without the filter in effect.

Hope you enjoyed your brief moment of visiblity.

On 19/03/2012 4:29 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2012-03-19, Hydrangea<hydrangea393@foo.mail.quuzzle.edu> wrote:
>> On 19/03/2012 3:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> Lists should accept e-mail from anyone. Filtering can be done without
>>> annoying registration requirements.
>>
>> But not receiving the list messages. For that, obviously, you have to
>> subscribe.
>
> What does your nonsensical cluelessness about mailing lists have to do with
> Lisp, Hydrangea?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition of cluelessness on my
part have to do with Lisp, Kylheku?

> I'm only seeing your posting because slrn reported no new messages (other than
> 1 killed) and just for fun I used "ESC 2 space" to read a few recent
> messages in the newsgroup view without the filter in effect.

Famous Last Words.

Then again, I'm new here so how could I have been killfiled to begin with?

BTW, and on a completely off-topic note, this is hilarious:

http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html

also, am I the only one mad at the recent Google facelift on Google Groups?Sure, now we got threaded discussion, but how am I supposed to look up older threads? How's WJ doing it? All I get is a "Loading more" as I scrolldown! Don't tell me I have to go through decades worth of fun trolls thisway?! This is unacceptable!

>>> This seems to work just fine for many groups.

>> It is also possible to created a moderated newsgroup.

> That is not the same because a moderated newsgroup is actually moderated
> for all postings, not just for new subscribers.

Messages are sent via e-mail to moderating software. Software can make
decision to post automatically. So it is essentially a same thing
without subscription concept. I guess it is possible to allow posting
automatically after one message was approved by moderator.

On 2012-03-20 03:44:00 +0000, namekuseijin said:

> BTW, and on a completely off-topic note, this is hilarious:
>
> http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html

Entertainlingly I changed this locally the other day to add some
people. I wasn't going to upload it, but it seems appropriate that I
should, now.

On 2012-03-19 19:09:21 +0000, Kaz Kylheku said:

> But are you interested in mailing lists without subscription requirements?

Not really, because I don't see what they have over newsgroups.

On 2012-03-19 19:12:50 +0000, Robert Klemme said:

> There's a some irony in your decision for unmoderated media and your
> suffering from people who (ab)use their freedom of speech... ;-)

Yes, there is, and that's why the post was titled "why *not* to give
up" (my emphasis), although it should really have been "why I won't
give up because of trolls", since there are lots of other reasons. I'd
rather have the trolls than moderation.

And I rather like Kaz's point: what WJ is actually doing is posting two
versions of the same code, one of which is easy to understand and one
of which is not. Which one to pick is a pretty easy decision, for me.

On 20/03/2012 6:33 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2012-03-19 19:12:50 +0000, Robert Klemme said:
>
>> There's a some irony in your decision for unmoderated media and your
>> suffering from people who (ab)use their freedom of speech... ;-)
>
> Yes, there is, and that's why the post was titled "why *not* to give up"
> (my emphasis), although it should really have been "why I won't give up
> because of trolls", since there are lots of other reasons. I'd rather
> have the trolls than moderation.
>
> And I rather like Kaz's point: what WJ is actually doing is posting two
> versions of the same code, one of which is easy to understand and one of
> which is not. Which one to pick is

in the eye of the beholder.

On 2012-03-19 18:39:52 +0000, RockB said:

> I don't think he thinks LOOP is evil. It's just ugly. Syntaxy; non-Lispy.

I think it's one of the most lispy things there is, because its an
example of a little single-purpose language implemented entirely at the
user level and then dropped in to its parent language as a seamless
extension.

Obviously I can't speak for WJ (even though he's actually me), but just
counting the number of articles he certainly does seem to have unduly
strong feelings about it.

On 20/03/2012 6:50 AM, Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On 2012-03-19 18:39:52 +0000, RockB said:
>
>> I don't think he thinks LOOP is evil. It's just ugly. Syntaxy; non-Lispy.
>
> I think it's one of the most lispy things there is, because its an
> example of a little single-purpose language implemented entirely at the
> user level and then dropped in to its parent language as a seamless
> extension.

The implementation of LOOP is as lispy as it gets, yes. It's the user
interface that bugs me.

> Obviously I can't speak for WJ (even though he's actually me),

?

> but just counting the number of articles he certainly does seem to have
> unduly strong feelings about it.

"Obsession" might not be too strong a word.