[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Hoping for an upgrade to MCL
- To: info-mcl@ministry.cambridge.apple.com
- Subject: Hoping for an upgrade to MCL
- From: alexandr@world.std.com (SSA)
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 20:53:07 GMT
- Keywords: MCL, Apple, PowerPC, upgrade,
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.mcl
- Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
- Summary: Another voice in support of upgrading MCL for the PowerPC
Open letter to Apple re MCL upgrade
I'm not usually a big letter-writer
or crusader, but since this is an
issue that has a big impact on my
life, I thought it would be good to
give you my two cents' worth
regarding the rumors flying around
that Apple is not planning any
further major upgrades to Macintosh
Common Lisp.
Even without the advent of the
PowerPC, I had been looking forward
to such possible improvements as a
more complete Metaobject Protocol or
an expanded library of CLOS classes
for interface design and application
construction. (I wouln't have spent
my own hard-earned money on a dead-
end product -- but I felt safe,
because I was buying from Apple, not
someone like Ashton-Tate.) And now
that faster machines such as the
PowerPC are becoming a reality, we
can finally afford the luxury of
programming in highly expressive
albeit slower-executing languages
such as Lisp.
I understand when buggy or ill-
defined languages fizzle out and get
dropped by their vendors, but
Apple's brand of Lisp offers
excellent features and performs "to
spec" -- no small achievement in a
fifty-year-old industry littered
with failed projects and broken
promises. Within its market,
Macintosh Common Lisp has a lot of
staunch supporters, including many
influential people pretty high-up in
academia, the military and high-tech
industries such as computer-aided
manufacturing, expert systems and
process control. Here you have,
with almost no active marketing or
"evangelism" on the part of Apple, a
small sophisticated market of users
who would "rather fight than switch"
-- I know a lot of marketing people
who would kill to have a product
with this kind of fierce "brand
loyalty," "early adopters," and
"opinion leaders." I'm sure you
don't need to be told how valuable
an intangible asset this kind of
product differentiation can be to a
high-tech company such as Apple --
the challenge is, can you get this
message through to the decision-
makers in marketing or senior
management? I don't think anyone is
asking Apple to become a not-for-
profit charity -- we're just
reminding you that you're not
selling pork bellies, you're selling
highly differentiated "knowledge"
products.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the
message I'm getting from Apple is
this: You seem to be tired of all
the complexity of developing
cutting-edge technology, and you've
decided that the way to increase
sales volume is to drop prices and
drop quality and just become another
"me-too" maker of generic PCs. A
very dangerous image to create in
such a sophisticated industry --
unless you've calculated that you
can afford to dump all your current
customers and replace them with more
new ones. Go ahead and woo
corporate America with pizza boxes
for word processing, spreadsheeting
and desktop publishing, but at the
same time, throw a little marketing
money and a few programmers at your
established Lisp product to keep it
alive as well. I should think
getting MCL up to version 3.0 will
take a hell of a lot less effort
than getting Dylan up to version 1.0
-- and won't there be some kind of
synergy to having two strong Lisp
products?
Perhaps the most exciting arena of
computer programming these days is
not just "object-oriented dynamic
languages" but simply the gradual
convergence between the declarative,
logical, functional and object-
oriented programming paradigms, as
exemplified by the emergence of new,
*executable* specification languages
supporting code re-use and
"programming-in-the-large." This
progress is being fueled by advances
in architecture and processing
speeds, as well as advances in
language and compiler design. I am
using my Quadra 800 at home to try
to port the executable specification
language OBJ (developed by Jose
Meseguer, Joseph Goguen et al. at
SRI International in Menlo Park) to
the Mac, and I need to use MCL as
the "underlying language" since the
original source implementing OBJ was
written in Austin-Kyoto Common Lisp.
(By the way, if you know of any
resources documenting the
differences between MCL and AKCL
that would help me to do port, I
would really appreciate any
pointers.)
I bought MCL and the 800 because I
wanted a true object-oriented
language on a reliable yet popular
platform, and I trusted that both
the hardware and the software would
be upgradable to keep up with the
times.
I hope that Apple either commits to
upgrading MCL and making it go
native on the PowerPC, or at least
releases the source to another
vendor or to the public so that
those of us who love MCL so much can
continue to get the most out of it.
Sincerely,
Scott Alexander
alexandr@world.std.com
The San Juan Star (newspaper)
San Juan, Puerto Rico