““Toward what end, toward what end?”- but do not ask it too often lest you pass up the fun of programming for the constipation of bittersweet philosophy.”

Every program has (at least) two purposes: the one for which it was written and another for which it wasn’t.

We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat’s next-to-last theorem.

In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble.

When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously.

Often it is the means that justify the ends: goals advance technique and technique survives even when goal structures crumble.

A language that doesn’t affect the way you think about programming is not worth knowing.

Once you understand how to write a program get someone else to write it.

We toast the Lisp programmer who pens his thoughts within nests of parentheses.

I think it is inevitable that people program poorly.

You think you KNOW when you learn.

Adapting old programs to fit new machines usually means adapting new machines to behave like old ones.

Are more sure when you can write, even more when you can teach, but certain when you can program.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing.

Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.

My teacher used to say ‘all love is bittersweet’. All things experienced fully, reveal their opposite.