[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LispM Market Share
Received: from NILS.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com by ALAN.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com via INTERNET with SMTP id 16708; 17 Jan 90 15:08:04 PST
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 90 15:08 PST
From: Eric Buckman <BUCKMAN@ALAN.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: LispM Market Share
Date: Wed, 17-Jan-90 09:00:10-PST
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 17:56:15 CST
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 90 15:53 PST
From: Montgomery Kosma <kosma@ALAN.kahuna.decnet.lockheed.com>
8. Lisp is still has the aura of being the "AI" language. Lisp
machines are for AI hackers, no?
I don't know quite how rare it is for somebody to be doing computational
physics on a Symbolics (probably extremely rare aside from the
occasionaly Connection Machine front end) but I guess some (at least
one) people are. If it wasn't for the Connection Machine I would be
doing fortran on a sun right now (****DEFINITELY**** not by choice), and
as it is, we will probably be concentrating more on Sun SPARC front ends
for the connection machine rather than the symbolics, primarily due to
issues of speed.
I find LISPM a wonderful place to crunch numbers as well as symbols
and objects. Selling a LISPM as JUST an AI machine is certainly
selling it short.
Is the issue of speed the fact that you can't hang array processors off
your LISPM, or that the number crunching performance of a LISPM isn't
good enough. I find that with some care in coding, LISPM number
crunch as well as the SUN 3's i have access to.
My AMIGA can number crunch as well as the sun 3's. My symbolics (which
costs at least 10 times as much) doesn't compare too well with our
recently-acquired SPARCstations. I'm not at ALL satisfied with
Symbolics being comparable to one of Sun's outdated models.
Keeping in mind of course that YOU are comparing an outdated Symbolics (you're
3645) with the new SPARCstation.