Re: Lisp considered unfinished

[Don Winiecki <IBDON@ttacs1.ttu.edu>]

On Mon, 5 Jun 1995, Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:

> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Dyer <ddyer@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>     Dave> I have to agree with Dave Yost; In many respects, modern
>     Dave> C/C++/Visual Basic development environments rival or exceed
>     Dave> the best lisp has to offer.  The underlying language is
>     Dave> still crap, but the gloss on top of it demos really well;
>     Dave> and truthfully, goes a long way toward improving
>     Dave> productivity.
> 
> "Demoing well" does not translate into productivity.

I think we're missing the point here...

1. "Everybody" knows BASIC, even non-programmers

2. VB is cheap

3. People like the "gee-wizz" factor in VB. The program is "almost done" 
when the buttons and fields are inserted. If it's not a _real_ increase 
in speed, it is definitely perceived that way.

4. Lisp and its cousins are only taught in a very specialized context. 
BASIC and C's derivatives are taught in _every_ context. Next year C++ is 
superceding Pascal in the High School Regents courses and tests. As a 
result, it will be as well known as BASIC in only a few years.

If you want a level field, address these issues.

> People usually don't
> complain about Lisp development evironments (which are very good actually), 
> but about efficiency/image size/common GUI/resource needs etc.  Given the 
> memory/CPU power available on low end machines, and the increasing 
> sophistication of off-the-shelf PC operating systems (OS/2 and windows 
> promises), it might only be a matter of time before someone comes out with 
> a Turbo-Lisp at a reasonable price ($200 or so).  Note, though, that 
> visual basic is not really in the same league.  The way I have seen it used
> is for cute and flashy windows programs that don't do anything requiring
> remotely sophisticated or unusual algorithms.  A turbo-Lisp could do all 
> visual Basic could do and more, but most people would not bother to learn 
> Lisp when when they can do all they want in Basic.  If this is a problem at 
> all, it has more to do with the local (US) pop computer/PC culture than Lisp.  
> 
>     Dave> Despite many millions that went into Symbolics, LMI, TI and
>     Dave> Xerox (both directly and to their customers) there is not
>     Dave> *ONE* really well known "lisp" success story to point to;
>     Dave> and on the flip side, everybody knows how much was invested
>     Dave> in those companies, and where they are now. [...]
> 
> Hmmm.  Off the top of my head I'd say Emacs, AutoCAD, and symbolic math
> systems with Lispy engines inside.  Sure, MS Word and Excel aren't written
> in Lisp, and they sell well and and serve their intended purpose but when
> you try to do anything "unusual" with them you realize how crippled they
> really are underneath that polished look.  On the language vendor side, both
> Franz and Harlequin seem to be doing well and according to the rumors on the
> net it wasn't the Lisp business that brought about Lucid's demise.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> BM
> 

+-------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------+
| Don Winiecki            | Office: AD/ED 233a          |   Office Hours   |
| Texas Tech University   |         AD/ED 323           |                  |
| College of Education    | Tele:   (806) 742-2397      |   Summer, 1995   |
| Box 41071               |         (806) 742-1998      |                  |
| Lubbock, TX. 79409-1071 | Email:  ibdon@ttacs.ttu.edu |  M-Th 4:30-5:30  |
+-------------------------+-----------------------------+------------------+