[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" |
Date: |
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:57:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Richard M. Stallman" <address@hidden> writes:
> As you can see, practically all meanings involve surviving into the
> present time. So I stand by my point that "archaic" and "dead" are
> not synonymous.
>
> Archaic does not imply "dead", but it does imply "not very much
> alive". Anyway, the relevant point is "archaic" is a smear term.
"Archaic life forms" are those that have survived basically unchanged
for millions of years, that were so well-adapted to their ecological
niche that natural selection has not weeded them out or made them
undergo significant changes. That's not really a "smear term". It
does imply "strange to behold as holding its own in modern times where
lots of things have changed utterly in comparison". But that is
indeed something that I don't consider an unfitting sentiment when
confronted with Emacs. Though TeX fits the bill even better.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Chong Yidong, 2006/01/29
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Jonathan Yavner, 2006/01/29
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", David Kastrup, 2006/01/29
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Richard M. Stallman, 2006/01/30
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", David Kastrup, 2006/01/30
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Richard M. Stallman, 2006/01/31
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Kevin Rodgers, 2006/01/31
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus", Stefan Monnier, 2006/01/31
- Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus",
David Kastrup <=