<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freedom of expression</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/</link>
	<description>Thoughts of a minor lunatic</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:01:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/#comment-2571</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2005 16:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.amber.org/?p=1760#comment-2571</guid>
		<description>REBOL is also a freedom language that unifies data and code. It's not open source, but it's the best -full freedom- language I've ever seen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>REBOL is also a freedom language that unifies data and code. It&#8217;s not open source, but it&#8217;s the best <del>full freedom</del> language I&#8217;ve ever seen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: petrilli</title>
		<link>http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/#comment-2567</link>
		<dc:creator>petrilli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.amber.org/?p=1760#comment-2567</guid>
		<description>Well, C++ has the perception of "safety" even if it's all smoke and mirrors. Java is a bit better about that, but comes at an even higher level of verbosity.  Proustian languages.

Lisp, as the only language that full unifies data and code, has the power, and the risk, of being anything.  Good practices are necessary to create readable code, but then, good practices are necessary, period.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, C++ has the perception of &#8220;safety&#8221; even if it&#8217;s all smoke and mirrors. Java is a bit better about that, but comes at an even higher level of verbosity.  Proustian languages.</p>
<p>Lisp, as the only language that full unifies data and code, has the power, and the risk, of being anything.  Good practices are necessary to create readable code, but then, good practices are necessary, period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Grossberg</title>
		<link>http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/#comment-2566</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Grossberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.amber.org/?p=1760#comment-2566</guid>
		<description>Heh ... I wouldn't use the word "safety" to describe C++'s operator overloading.

Maybe Lisp is an "anarchy" language.

And, though even mentioning it makes me nauseous, ColdFusion (CFML and CFScript) is like a sippy-cup language.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh &#8230; I wouldn&#8217;t use the word &#8220;safety&#8221; to describe C++&#8217;s operator overloading.</p>
<p>Maybe Lisp is an &#8220;anarchy&#8221; language.</p>
<p>And, though even mentioning it makes me nauseous, ColdFusion (CFML and CFScript) is like a sippy-cup language.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Barnes</title>
		<link>http://blog.amber.org/2005/08/24/freedom-of-expression/#comment-2564</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Barnes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:16:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.amber.org/?p=1760#comment-2564</guid>
		<description>I agree that Lisp is a freedom language and I can't think how I left it out of my post.  I put things a bit more softly than you have, but on the whole I agree with your points.  To the extent that teams are made smaller and more efficient by better architecture (made possible by freedom languages like Lisp) then the goals of the safety languages are superfluous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that Lisp is a freedom language and I can&#8217;t think how I left it out of my post.  I put things a bit more softly than you have, but on the whole I agree with your points.  To the extent that teams are made smaller and more efficient by better architecture (made possible by freedom languages like Lisp) then the goals of the safety languages are superfluous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.232 seconds -->
