On Monday, April 14, 2003 at 12:20:07 PM UTC-5, Andrew Burton wrote:
> I'm not sure how to ask this, so I want to preface this by saying I'm not try
> start a language war. This is a question I had this weekend, and wanted to ask
> as part of my "trying to understand the Lisp mentality."
> Lately I've been trying to play with various (free) Lisp implementations just
> to get the feel of the overall language. I've used clisp, scsh, MIT Scheme,
> and I've even tinkered with Emacs Lisp and Dr. Scheme a little bit. In playing
> with these different Lisps, I can see the similarities, and I can see the
> differences. Now, I'm no where close to being anything but a hobbyist with it
> so far, but I'm worndering: when one gets to the point that one can program
> marvelous software with a specific implementation, does one kind of focus on
> that specific implementation? I mean, do Lisp hackers generally focus on
> learning one implementation, or is it better to kind of learn them at a
> paralell pace?
> I'm wondering -- and again, this isn't trying to say one is better than the
> other -- should set MIT Scheme, Emacs Lisp, and such aside until I get better
> at clisp? Or should I continue working with each one as I have been? What do
> most Lisp hackers do? Any opinions are welcome. Thanks.
> Andrew Burton -- tuglyraisin at aol dot com
> Felecia Station on Harvestgain
> Jipi: Don't Believe everything the Net tell you.
> Chip: I agree with this. My inputs are not to be trusted.
> CROW: Quick, save the Robot Ashley!

vonunov <vonunov@gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, April 14, 2003 at 12:20:07 PM UTC-5, Andrew Burton wrote:
> ...

I love how Google makes it easy for the clueless to reply to 20 year old
posts. I wonder about the future of this. Will we have people replying
to 100 year old posts in the 22nd century?

* Alan Bawden <86r0ulw671.fsf @williamsburg.bawden.org> :
Wrote on Sun, 19 Feb 2023 19:06:58 -0500:
> I love how Google makes it easy for the clueless to reply to 20 year old
> posts. I wonder about the future of this. Will we have people replying
> to 100 year old posts in the 22nd century?

Note there wasn't any content in the reply. His reply was probably sent
in error when the user was merely browsing and inadvertently triggered
some action that was designed to trigger some surveillance traffic.

(if you know what I mean -- like those clicks or keystrokes in the 90s
porn sites that opened popups on other sites)

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 19:06:58 -0500
Alan Bawden <alan@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> vonunov <vonunov@gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Monday, April 14, 2003 at 12:20:07 PM UTC-5, Andrew Burton wrote:
> > ...
>
> I love how Google makes it easy for the clueless to reply to 20 year old
> posts. I wonder about the future of this.

Replying to very old posts can be cool if there is some substance in the
reply which on this occasion there wasn't. For an amusing example see

Newsgroups: comp.programming
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <30l6ec$r6r@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
References: <30l6ec$r6r@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9b919c91-61da-4215-a1c1-263947ed28e4n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Hyper-fast joystick read

or

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167689170400

> Will we have people replying
> to 100 year old posts in the 22nd century?

This would be even more cool.

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 5:21:42 AM UTC-6, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 19:06:58 -0500
> Alan Bawden <al...@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> > vonunov <von...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > On Monday, April 14, 2003 at 12:20:07 PM UTC-5, Andrew Burton wrote:
> > > ...
> >
> > I love how Google makes it easy for the clueless to reply to 20 year old
> > posts. I wonder about the future of this.
> Replying to very old posts can be cool if there is some substance in the
> reply which on this occasion there wasn't.

Except for the fact that the Mel Brooks movie only had 12 chairs. What
happened to the other 8?!