Re: Yes, they are special, but...

["William D. Gooch" <ai.gooch@MCC.COM>]

    It's a lot harder than it should be to develop software for delivery on
    other hardware platforms.  There are things Symbolics could do to make
    this easier even for Common Lisp, like checking type declarations for
    consistency.  Window systems used to be a major problem here, but of
    course recently, with the advent of X, that's getting better.

Do you know about CLOE (especially release 2, coming July 7)?

	Running
    other languages than Lisp on Lisp Machines brings its own set of
    problems; many of these can rightly be blamed on the brain-damage of the
    other language in question, but unfortunately it doesn't matter whose
    fault they are: they still get in the way.

I have never found an environment that deals with interlanguage
communication in a completely wonderful way.  Symbolics does this as
well as or better than most, and they're typically much more responsive
to suggestions for improvement in this area than most.

    Seems to me that if Symbolics machines were price and performance
    competitive with Suns etc., or were even just 20% to 30% more expensive,
    these failings might be more readily overlooked in the marketplace.  But
    the one-two whammy of incompatibility and price seems to have been
    fatal.  Symbolics is addressing these issues, of course, but I am afraid
    they missed their chance by failing to do so in 1983.

I disagree, but unfortunately (judging by the stock price after three
consecutive profitable quarters), the investment public seems to agree
with you.  I remain convinced that Symbolics under their new leadership
(could be read "the new Symbolics") is making a lot of the right moves,
and persistence in this will pay off for them in the long run.  As long
as they can remain profitable - even if only barely so - I think you're
stretching the point to say that their missing of opportunities in the
past were "fatal" mistakes.

    Opinionatedly,
      Scott