Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Gmail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion OT: No active projects at J13 ?? (was Re: Why learn Lisp)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Kent M Pitman  
View profile  
 More options Aug 28 2002, 11:25 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:25:13 GMT
Local: Wed, Aug 28 2002 11:25 am
Subject: Re: OT: No active projects at J13 ?? (was Re: Why learn Lisp)

Andreas Hinze <a...@smi.de> writes:
> Kent M Pitman wrote:

> > I personaly think ANSI is a large, too-slow, not-very-useful entity to
> > be accomodating all but the most low-level basic standards.  It was
> > probably appropriate to standardize CL itself this way, but even then
> > it's quite clear that the long time-line caused by ANSI resulted in
> > some companies going bankrupt in the meanwhile.  Was ANSI the cause?
> > Probably not.  But did producing an ANSI standard cost a serious lot of
> > money on the part of all Lisp vendors?  Yes.

> I didn't know that it is so slow and expensive. That explains a lot.

Not in terms of its people in their offices nor in terms of its fees.
In terms of the hidden costs of travel to
meetings, of offline work, of the lead time required for notices of
meetings (stretching out timetable), the publishing and review
requirements (resources and temporal duration), the loss of control of
intellectual property they are increasingly pushing for (we just scraped
by before)... everything adds up.

The easily enumerable part is loaded salary costs (salary + overhead
for offices, machines, etc).  Producing ANSI CL [1986 to 1995] took a
bit over $400K, if I recall right.

The costs of a zillion people traveling, of the timeline being years
long, of people sitting at desks answering email and reviewing
hardcopy, etc., are hard to measure.  I'd say probably that comes
close to doubling it...

None of this counts the cost of the community "accepting" the changes,
meaning of each user reading new documentation, of vendors making and
testing new implementations, of deployed products looking for and perhaps
even debugging incompatibilities (this cost may be present even if the
incompatibilities won't be there, since one has to at least check).
An analyst report I saw at Symbolics once for a fairly modest set of
incompatible changes (that is, small in number but pervasive in nature)
showed that target customers often pay upwards (sometimes way upwards)
of $10K per customer to accept such releases...  This aggregates to ENORMOUS
community cost before any new benefit is realized.  

Before making changes, one wants to believe they are going to overcome
these costs.

Layered standards are another matter, but require no change to the existing
core.

> > Users love to point to things like this because they want
> > everything on a silver platter if they can get it, but the cost of
> > getting this silver platter is high enough that the rough edges
> > present will buy you more in terms of other things vendors could
> > provide.
> Right. I was only looking for the advantages of further standardisation
> without thinking about the costs.

> Your explaination give me a new sight to the hole topic. I didn't realize the
> problems behind that hole process. Thanks for your patient explanations.

Not a problem.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google