[…] of personal preference and availability than of clear technical superiority, although discussions among advocates of INTERLISP and MACLISP often take the tone of theological disputes.
He does this by showing the correspondence between technologies and philosophical/theological metaphors.
1986, Digital design[2], volume 16, Boston: Benwill, →ISSN:
Such machinations produce neat theological arguments but don't help our definitions much. Currently, popular notions of AI range from cute (R2D2) to sinister (HAL in 2001). But real life is far more mundane.
1986 December 9, Jim Seymour, “In plain English”, in PC Mag[3], volume 5, number 21, Ziff Davis, →ISSN, page 96:
While those folks are caught up in theological arguments about LISP versus PROLOG, […]
1988, Amar Gupta, Bandreddi E. Prasad, editors, Microcomputer-based expert systems, New York: IEEE Press, →ISBN, page 45:
[…] the choice between the available options when both paradigms are appropriate, will become mainly a subjective one, and perhaps more theological than technical.
1990 June 13, Eric S. Raymond, “the JARGON FILE draft, part 4 of 4”, in comp.misc[4] (Usenet), message-ID <1Wm6h5#997dD67nHknK1Bm0F08wOrXb=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>:
THEOLOGY[…] Technical fine points of an abstruse nature, esp. those where the resolution is of theoretical interest but relatively MARGINAL with respect to actual use of a design or system. Used esp. around software issues with a heavy AI or language design component. Example: the deep- vs. shallow-binding debate in the design of dynamically-scoped LISPS.
Noun: an emotional rather than rational belief or policy
