[r6rs-discuss] (no subject)

[Guillermo J. Rozas]

> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:04:28 -0500
> From: Jon Wilson <j85wilson at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Case sensitivity
> To: r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> Message-ID: <49A363BC.2050809 at fastmail.fm>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi,
>
> Guillermo J. Rozas wrote:
>
>>>> So?  It's what people are used to when dealing with computers.
>>>>
>>>> There are far more computer users out there than programmers.
>>>>
>>> There are far more people than there are computer users too, so  
>>> what?
>>> The identifiers in my code have nothing to do with them either.
>>>
>>
>> But to be a computer programmer, you have to be a computer user[*].
>> Since to be a computer user, you must already be used to a case-
>> insensitive
>> file system, making the language case-insensitive presents no new
>> mechanisms.
>>
>
> *cough*  I use a computer.  Thus I am a computer user.  As it happens,
> I'm used to a case sensitive file system.

Yes, and in the original message where I wrote about the file systems,
I already granted that Unix (in general, not the MacOS version) use case
sensitive file systems, but also that most people who use (non MacOS)
Unix are also programmers.

>> Perfect example of 'sample bias'.
>>
>
> Actually, no.  Perfect example of 'sample'.  What bias is there in who
> is on the list at any given time?

self-selection.

>  Did the pollster somehow magically
> know that people who like case insensitivity would be looking at the
> list at say 5:00 in the evening and avoid that time therefore?

Lack of knowledge does not mean that there is no correlation.

> Furthermore, if the remainder of users who are not on that list "don't
> care about the future of Scheme", then were they to somehow find their
> preferences on that poll, the only real effect would be a pileup of
> ballots under "don't care", since that is, after all, their defining
> characteristic.  It seems that, according to your own description, it
> was quite a good random sample of people who think their opinion  
> matters.

No.  They might not care about the future of scheme, but they might  
start
caring if you break it for them.

> I really don't know why I keep reading this thread.  It is like a  
> train
> wreck.  You don't appear to care about Scheme much (endless comments
> about how it is not a practical language, how you can't use it for
> anything Real (TM), how it has failed as a language, etc), you  
> admit to
> not using it very much at all, and you and Eli seem to be largely
> talking past each other.

That is your prerogative.

But,

A: I care about Scheme.  Otherwise I wouldn't read this.

B: As I've said many times, I would love to be able to use it for  
anything at work,
     but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, and I  
barely have any
    time to hack outside of work.

C: 'anything Real(TM)' is your wording, not mine.  And I don't  
confuse commercial
     success with reality.  In fact, it is partly due to its lack of  
commercial success that it
    is important to me that it continue to be a good teaching  
vehicle.  Teaching is
    just as real.

>   I'd judge both of you trolls, except that I
> know Eli a little, and he is certainly not a troll in general, but one
> of the most competent Scheme users that I am privileged to know.   
> You on
> the other hand, I don't know.
> Regards,


As I said, it is your prerogative.