Lisp Machines vs. Commercial Lisps ???
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
features.
Allegro CL $3K with student discount. (The ed. that makes exe. files under
windows.) no wonder the price of Allegro CL is not on there web site.
KnowlegeWorks $2.5K Commercial
LispWorks $950 Commercial
GoldWorks III < $2K educational.
MCL around $650
PS
Why is Allegro so pricey?
PPS
The only good deal besides free Lisps is Corman Lisp about
$125 student price.
I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
Another benefit of buying a Lispm vs. a Commercial Lisp is this--the price
of the Lispm includes the computer.
Expect a computer for Lisp to cost <$2,000 if you want a good one.
or around $500 if you want an E-Machine.
Note: this is not to invite flames but to point people who'd like to learn
Lisp and are not made of $$$ in the right direction.
If I had enough $$$ I prob. would buy Allegro--but I am a student and don't
have alot of spare $$$ to feed my hobby.
One sad fact is this: the price for used Lispms is so reasonable because
Lispm companys priced themselves out of existance in the first place--if
they provides 1-2K machines they'd sell a lot to hobbyists. Esp. since Lisp
Compilers for Windoz are so costly.
The Lisp Machine is ANSI CL, and includes all source code--so you can hack
Lisp to your hearts content.
Tim Bradshaw
[Drivel. Endless repetitions of this kind of thing over the years are
why so many people on cll seem so unfriendly. The two rational
responses I can see are to completely ignore the fools who produce
them, or to be so unpleasant to them that they go away for ever. I'm
failing to do either here, I'm afraid.]
> BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
> features.
Like `running natively on all major platforms', `delivering
executables on all major platforms', `supporting 64bit platforms',
`being actively supported', `competing in performance with C on
current systems, `supporting CORBA', and a long and growing list of
other features.
> The Lisp Machine is ANSI CL, and includes all source code--so you
> can hack Lisp to your hearts content.
No, it's not (assuming you mean Genera 8.x). It's close but not as
close as most of the current commercial CLs are.
--tim (who used a LispM before you knew what Lisp was I expect, and
has undoubtedly owned more of them than you)
Kent M Pitman
@ hotmail . com> writes:
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
Because people will pay that. It doesn't have to be you.
Stop complaining about people making a profit. That's a good thing.
You don't have to buy from them if you don't like.
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
Well, depending on the model you get, the amount of direct power (in
elec) and indirect power (in elec for A/C) you use may drive the price
up after-the-fact in hidden ways.
And there are a finite number of such machines, so for many applications,
especially those that must be deployed on standard hardware, this is
not an acceptable solution.
Also, Lispms are not continually improving in speed. Some people like
to get a new processor every 6 months or a year that is faster. Even
if you buy the software emulation on the Alpha, that's no longer a
maintained piece of hardware. (Also, I think obtaining a legal
software license costs you, in addition to obtaining the hardware to
run it--or that may be only for new hardware, I'm not sure.)
These are not criticisms of the LispM environment per se, but since the
only sources of LispM environments are presently not actively producing
a new stream of releases on modern hardware, there are some definite
limitations to this approach.
I certainly still use my LispM (Macivory Model 3) from time to time...
but not daily.
> Why is Allegro so pricey?
I have no special knowledge of this, but I suspect the reason is that
they do not want to make their money on Lisp sales, but rather on Lisp
support. Implicitly, by screening out people who think that this is
"pricey" they are eliminating people who don't have money for support,
and streamlining their commercial dialog to be established companies
with adequate cash flow to both be able to buy support and appreciate
its need. From the tone of the your message, it sounds to me like if
this is their plan, it's working.
(Note that phone companies do the same thing with charging more for
daytime calls, and airlines with charging more for people who book at
the last minute. People protest that they won't do these things, and
they make their calls at night or their trips with lots of planning,
but businesses often can't afford to and end up paying the high
prices.)
The real question is, if you are comfortable with the other offerings,
why do you care about the price of a particular implementation that
comes from a vendor that seems to be economically successful? They
must know what they are doing because people continue to buy them,
perhaps because they offer a product of sufficient quality that it
commands the price they ask in enough cases to make it worth their
while.
> I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
So don't. An offering that is not something a person in the market
wants to afford is not a sign of a sick market. I refuse to pay more
for a car than the cost of a car, but that doesn't keep Mercedes-Benz,
Porsche, etc. from making really expensive cars, nor should it, it
just means everyone has a different notion of what "car"...
> One sad fact is this: the price for used Lispms is so reasonable
> because Lispm companys priced themselves out of existance in the
> first place--if they provides 1-2K machines they'd sell a lot to
> hobbyists. Esp. since Lisp Compilers for Windoz are so costly.
There are no new ones being made. They can't make them at these
costs. They couldn't even make them at this cost when they were being
made. They cost about $30K at the time the company was going out of
business, and even then they knew the prices needed to about $5K to
satisfy the customer base, they just couldn't reach that price point
and break even.
It's well-known in the computer industry (and most industries) that if
you drop prices, you get a larger base. The problem is that dropping
prices drops price-per-box and you have to survive on less income
until the larger base kicks in. Lots of time, the money just isn't
there. Forget the LispM, look at Apple--nearly everything for the Mac
is more expensive than one would wish, almost surely because they
can't afford to drop the price enough to get the volume that would
justify the drop--and as a consequence of not dropping the price, they
can't get the market either. Catch-22.
Pascal Costanza
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
They are still in business, so obviously they don't need to expect it,
they just get it.
> Allegro CL $3K with student discount. (The ed. that makes exe. files under
> windows.) no wonder the price of Allegro CL is not on there web site.
You get ACL for free for private use. Why do you want to create exe
files? In the Lisp world, it's quite safe to assume that you want to be
more than a hobbyist when you want to create exe files.
> MCL around $650
Digitool still has the introductory offer of MCL 5.0 for $495.
> The only good deal besides free Lisps is Corman Lisp about
> $125 student price.
>
> I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
...so this limits your choices.
> If I had enough $$$ I prob. would buy Allegro--but I am a student and don't
> have alot of spare $$$ to feed my hobby.
There are lots of good Common Lisp implementations out there. As a
student you usually get discounts on commercial CL systems - LispWorks
costs $540 and MCL currently $297.
> One sad fact is this: the price for used Lispms is so reasonable because
> Lispm companys priced themselves out of existance in the first place--if
> they provides 1-2K machines they'd sell a lot to hobbyists. Esp. since Lisp
> Compilers for Windoz are so costly.
You have to take into account that Common Lisp is not exactly a
mainstream language. So the group of supporters is considerably smaller
than for other languages, and there are currently no big companies
involved in Lisp. The commercial vendors need to have good ideas how to
ensure their existence in the long run. What you are currently
perceiving is that their ideas of how to achieve this don't match yours.
Pascal
Gareth McCaughan
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
Because their Lisp environments allow you to do things
that you cannot do with a Lisp machine bought for around 1K.
Such as taking advantage of the absurd speed of modern
PC hardware, making executables everyone else can use,
not requiring you to buy an extra computer, not screwing
you completely if your hardware suffers a failure, and
so on.
And because they offer commercial support, which some people
value highly.
> BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
> features.
>
> Allegro CL $3K with student discount. (The ed. that makes exe. files under
> windows.) no wonder the price of Allegro CL is not on there web site.
Will a Lisp Machine bought for $1K make EXE files that
run in Windows? :-)
> Why is Allegro so pricey?
Because they have found that enough customers are
willing to pay that price. It's a free market in
operation. I wouldn't pay $3K for Allegro myself,
but fortunately I don't have to because there are
cheaper systems around. If I ever find myself
needing what Franz offers badly enough to pay $3K
for it (or, presumably, more, since it's a while
since I was a student), I know where to find it.
> I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
Uh-huh. And apparently you also refuse to pay more than
$125 for a used car. That's your choice, of course.
For my part, I don't see why there should be the
slightest relationship between the price of a compiler
and the price of a used car. But, since it seems to
matter to you, there are plenty of used cars for sale
that cost a lot more than the student edition of Allegro CL.
> Another benefit of buying a Lispm vs. a Commercial Lisp is this--the price
> of the Lispm includes the computer.
Another benefit of buying a Lisp that runs on stock hardware
is that you don't need to find space for another computer.
> Expect a computer for Lisp to cost <$2,000 if you want a good one.
If you want one that merely runs Lisp programs as fast
as that $1000 Lisp Machine, then you do not need to pay
anything like $2000 for it. (Did you mean ">" rather than
"<", by the way?)
> If I had enough $$$ I prob. would buy Allegro--but I am a student and don't
> have alot of spare $$$ to feed my hobby.
That's fine. Just as well there are good free CL implementations,
and cheap commercial ones, as well as the pricey Allegro CL,
isn't it?
> One sad fact is this: the price for used Lispms is so reasonable because
> Lispm companys priced themselves out of existance in the first place--if
> they provides 1-2K machines they'd sell a lot to hobbyists. Esp. since Lisp
> Compilers for Windoz are so costly.
They would also have made a loss on every one they shipped.
As for me, I'd *love* to have a Lisp Machine, but that
love doesn't go far enough to make me either buy old,
power-hungry, flaky, space-consuming hardware and try
to squeeze it into my house, or to shell out the money
to buy an Alpha machine and OpenGenera (which would be,
I believe, somewhat more than the $3K you quoted for
Allegro CL). I choose not to whine about this.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
OCID
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
Their product, their price
> BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
> features.
>
> Allegro CL $3K with student discount. (The ed. that makes exe. files under
> windows.) no wonder the price of Allegro CL is not on there web site.
>
> KnowlegeWorks $2.5K Commercial
>
> LispWorks $950 Commercial
>
> GoldWorks III < $2K educational.
>
> MCL around $650
Clisp, CMUCL, SBCL, OpenMCL, LUSH, newLisp etc free. Clisp works fine
under cygwin on windoze as well. And then there are various scheme dialects
as
well ... some that compile to executable binaries.
Allegro also has an eval version which expires every 60 days but can be
renewed
at the click of a button and is a decent learning environment.
> PS
>
> Why is Allegro so pricey?
>
> PPS
>
> The only good deal besides free Lisps is Corman Lisp about
> $125 student price.
>
> I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
Don't have to
> Another benefit of buying a Lispm vs. a Commercial Lisp is this--the price
> of the Lispm includes the computer.
>
> Expect a computer for Lisp to cost <$2,000 if you want a good one.
>
> or around $500 if you want an E-Machine.
>
> Note: this is not to invite flames but to point people who'd like to learn
> Lisp and are not made of $$$ in the right direction.
>
> If I had enough $$$ I prob. would buy Allegro--but I am a student and
don't
> have alot of spare $$$ to feed my hobby.
Take a look at the free lisps. They are pretty high quality.
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
One benefit of my Lispm: no coredump(ala buggy C++/Java), blue screen of
death, or sigsegv 'memory protection' errors. :)
I'd like Windows/Linux better if someone could find a way to fix those
errors--they have a strange way of creaping in during mission critical code
or @ random times.
Use of Lisp=No Buffer Overruns :) sorry Rober Morris.
PS
This is not saying anything bad about Lisp Compilers on MS Windows, just the
excellent job Microsoft did on there OS.
BK
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
Interesting. You are not talking about that Lispm Nubus card for Mac
68K, are you?!
> BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
> features.
What about performance?
> Allegro CL $3K with student discount.
(:-o)
> MCL around $650
They used to have a student license for $80 per seat. This was when
Roger Corman was still working on PowerLisp on the Mac. When I
mentioned the MCL $80 student lisense he commented that even as a
shareware author, he could hardly compete with that offer.
> The only good deal besides free Lisps is Corman Lisp about
> $125 student price.
God bless him!
> I refuse to pay more for a compiler than for a used car.
Seems reasonable, but I guess for corporates 2 or 3 grand per seat is
not much of an issue. Check out the client lists of those Lisp vendors
and you will probably find that it's mostly big multinational
corporations.
>
> Another benefit of buying a Lispm vs. a Commercial Lisp is this--the price
> of the Lispm includes the computer.
>
> Expect a computer for Lisp to cost <$2,000 if you want a good one.
>
> or around $500 if you want an E-Machine.
>
> Note: this is not to invite flames but to point people who'd like to learn
> Lisp and are not made of $$$ in the right direction.
How about an eMac with education discount ($778) and an MCL student
license? That should be about the same price than what you quoted for
those second hand Lisp Machines and I'd think you get better overall
value with the eMac, considering that most people will be doing more
than just Lisp.
> If I had enough $$$ I prob. would buy Allegro--but I am a student and don't
> have alot of spare $$$ to feed my hobby.
So what's wrong with Corman Lisp and a cheap PC, or a second hand CRT
iMac and OpenMCL? Shouldn't cost you more than $500-$600.
> One sad fact is this: the price for used Lispms is so reasonable because
> Lispm companys priced themselves out of existance in the first place--if
> they provides 1-2K machines they'd sell a lot to hobbyists.
I doubt that it would have been possible *at the time* to produce
those Lisp Machines at that price.
> The Lisp Machine is ANSI CL, and includes all source code--so you can hack
> Lisp to your hearts content.
So is OpenMCL (and possibly other open source CLs) and it's free. So
the situation doesn't seem to be all that bad, or is it?!
rgds
bk
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
>Why do you want to create exe files?
I want to create some freeware lisp apps in Windows so that people can see
how useful Lisp is--and maybe encourage more people to use Lisp to develop
applications.
If I have to pay for the tools I am using I can not afford to give my apps
away.
If I don't give my apps away, then I can not shout surprize that cool app
you used was written in Lisp--and could not have be written as easily in
C++/Java -- hopefully this will convince more people to try Lisp.
Wanting to write AI code drove me to choose Lisp over C++/Java, Lisp has
better support for Symbolic Computation that either C++/Java and also has an
ANSI standard.
Some benefits right off the bat:
No memory leaks.
No datatype conflicts.
No stack based bugs (I might have got the term wrong) like Robert Morris's
worm used.
Uniform syntax for data and program.
No stack overflows--in Lisp I got
Error: Stack full
:retry with a larger stack :abort to top level :contiune enter a new value
in C++/Java I got:
Stack overflow: Core Dumped.
Some other benfits of Lisp to people wanting to learn how to program:
1.) no pointers (I hate pointers--they tend to crash systems, and are harder
for people to learn than Lisp.)
2.) no datatyping. (Why do I need seventeen functions in C++/Java to do what
one function in Lisp can do. I hate typing the same function over and over
and over and over and over .... and over.
3.) no memory management (The computer does a better job that I do; so, I'll
let the computer do it.)
4.) real macros. (Not the crappy excuse for macros C provides.
5.) I can write generalized functions easily. (I don't have to torture
myself with C++ style templates.)
6.) The ability to represent symbols easily. (In C++/Java it is a pain.)
7.) Multiple Inheritance, MultiMethods. MOP. etc. (C++ is more messy.)
8.) Run-time, on the fly coding. (It is easier to fix bugs.)
9.) I can compile on Lisp function at a time. (It takes a long time to
recompile my C++ programs.)
10.) I don't have to remember which lines require a ';' and which do not.
I picked up Lisp on my own in about 6 months from Dr. David T's book--than I
tried to learn C++/Java at college, it's been about a year and I still
understand Lisp better.
"The C++ Compiler the Sadist; The C++ Programmer the Masochist." -- An Anon.
C++ programmer trying to fix a memory leak @ my school.
PS
If you get more people intrested in AI you'll get more people intrested in
Lisp. My intrest in AI drove me to chose Lisp over Pascal, Java,
VisualBasic, C, C++, and Java.
MicroSoft Products sucking so badly drove me away from VisualBasic,
VisualStudio, and VisualC++ but that's another story.
The only other Lang. besides Common Lisp I'll even consider are: Scheme, and
Prolog. I'll look at Prolog because of my intrest in AI, and NLP.
I am trying to become self taught in AI programming.
"Trying to do AI in C++ is as painful as getting a root canal without
novacain; trust me I've tried once--that drove me to Lisp faster that Killer
Bees would drive me to water. :)" -- Misc. Philosopher.
Tj
While you're getting semi-flamed here, I think that's an interesting
question. To understand this odd-seeming price, you need to get rid
of old conceptions of pricing strategies. We're trained to think in
terms of two strategies: cost+profit and "kill profit for
marketshare!" However it often happens these are ruinous strategies.
For one thing, price often has an effect on perceived value. If
Allegro CL priced at $300 instead of $3000, they wouldn't get 10X the
customers. They'd probably even lose customers since they'd be seen
as competing against lower-cost products. They're not aiming at those
customers.
Also, businesses are less price-sensitive. You're an individual, and
therefore more sensitive. Do you complain about the cost of a
McDonald's grill? No, because it's almost never sold to individuals.
However, companies are in the business of investing money to get more.
Their accountants are happy to pay thousands to get a lot of
perceived benefit.
Here's a fun article:
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/68/pricing.html
I've got a nasty cold, so I'll leave it at that. I'm sure there's a
good book on Amazon that I can't recall right now. Incidentally, I
like to think that Free Software is extremely important because there
are some needs that can't be serviced at sustainable pricing.
Therefore, it must be taken care of outside financial systems.
Tj
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
> > features.
>
> Like `running natively on all major platforms', `delivering
> executables on all major platforms', `supporting 64bit platforms',
> `being actively supported', `competing in performance with C on
> current systems, `supporting CORBA', and a long and growing list of
> other features.
Try:
An Object Oriented Database System (Statice)
An Expert System Development Tool (Joshua, KEE)
Source Code to an Operating System in Lisp (Genera)
The price of these for Windows would add several thousand
to the price of Allegro--all included with the Lispms for the
same price now--when they were sold everything was
prob. an add on.
The two benefits of a Lispm are:
1.) Loads of Lisp source code--just fun to Look at. I esp. like the
OS is written in Lisp--Lispms don't crash often.
2.) An Integrated Developement Environment.
For students who want to learn about Lisp, there neat.
The best benefit I found: no sigsegvs or blue screens of death :)
Andrew Wolven
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
wrote in message news:pjyta.4513$pn7...@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
My Lispm is broken. :(
I already paid to have it fixed once and I just can't afford to keep it
running. It is 13 or 14 years old after all. So my answer to your question
is reliability.
AKW
Tj
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/013026248X/002-1380390-0472843
BTW, I notice you ignore Corman Lisp, which IIRC is priced low.
Tj
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
"Andrew Wolven" <awo...@nospam.net> wrote:
> My Lispm is broken. :(
At work we have kept Lispms working for longer than Intel or Solaris
workstations. & we are currntly trying to write a Lispm emulator so
that Genera 8.x can be run under Mac OS/X, Window, Linux, yada yada
yada.
If you got a newer Lispm you should be able to replace the SCSI drives
yourself for a fraction of the cost of a new system--look on e-bay.
If it is a 36xx or earlier--most parts a not replaceable.
I can't wait for the day when Lispm companies release new
machines--concidering how advanced there arch. was for the mid 80's. (40
bit--right now most processors at 32bit.)
What chips becides the Alpha no longer supported are 64bit & will run either
Mac OS/X+Virtual PC+Windows or Windows. Please enlighten me on this.
Kunle Odutola
> What chips becides the Alpha no longer supported are 64bit & will run
> either Mac OS/X+Virtual PC+Windows or Windows. Please enlighten me on
> this.
Intel Itanium/IA-64
AMD Hammer/Athlon64/Opteron
IBM Power4
Motorola PowerPC
Kunle
Boethius
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
>
> BTW, the Lispm blows most Commercial Lisps out of the water in terms of
> features.
Fine, then buy yourself one.
> Note: this is not to invite flames
Of course not. };-)
> but to point people who'd like to learn
> Lisp and are not made of $$$ in the right direction.
If only you were as concerned of not wasting bandwidth as you
obviously are of not 'wasting' (sic) your money...
Gareth McCaughan
> At work we have kept Lispms working for longer than Intel or Solaris
> workstations. & we are currntly trying to write a Lispm emulator so
> that Genera 8.x can be run under Mac OS/X, Window, Linux, yada yada
> yada.
I'm puzzled by something. You seem to alternate between
being a student who can't afford to pay much for a
commercial Lisp system, and having a job programming
Lisp Machines. I'm sure it's none of my business, but
I'm curious: what gives? Are you doing a degree in your
spare time, or something?
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
"Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbbg90k.21k2....@g.local...
Degree on Line at SUNY Empire State.
I can make sure I only get Lisp courses so I don't have to learn an other
language.
When I say at work--I meant I knew some people at RIT who used Lispms and
loved them.
I have to avoid learning about pointers, and memory managment--Lisp does it
for me. :)
I'm happy that way.
I can just code with out designing the program logic easier in Lisp or maybe
Prolog ;) than
in any other Language.
I might even go for an Eng. Lit. degree--I have an A.S. Comp. Sci.
degree--very hard to
get work with it. I learned Lisp on my own. I wanted to do some NLP, Text
Generation and
Lisp was very well suited for that kind of project.
I work from home doing this or that. BTW, I have yet to make money--maybe
after I get a
B.S./B.A. in what I haven't yet decided. (Could be a dual degree.)
U of R's NeuralLingistics looks good to me after my BS/BA but it is only a
PHD program.
If will fill my love of English Lit. Comp. Sci. and Persuasive Rhetoric. I'm
sure to find use
for Lisp in NeuralLinguistics but it will be at least three years before I
can start.
Kunle Odutola
> What chips becides the Alpha no longer supported are 64bit & will run
> either Mac OS/X+Virtual PC+Windows or Windows. Please enlighten me on
> this.
Intel Itanium/IA-64
AMD Hammer/Athlon64/Opteron
IBM Power4
Motorola/IBM PowerPC
Kunle
Ray Blaak
> I can make sure I only get Lisp courses so I don't have to learn an other
> language.
Learn as many languages as you can. Even you still only want to use Lisp,
having knowledge of other ways of doing things makes you a wiser programmer.
Cheers,
Ray Blaak
Gareth McCaughan
> Degree on Line at SUNY Empire State.
>
> I can make sure I only get Lisp courses so I don't have to learn an other
> language.
I hope you don't mind my saying this, but: What a
silly constraint to put yourself under! Lisp is
a fantastic (and my favourite) programming language,
but if you refuse to learn anything else then you're
impoverishing yourself. Open your mind!
(If you already know, let's say, Prolog, ML, C++,
Perl and an assembly language[1], then you may consider
yourself excused. But in that case, there's no need
to "only get Lisp courses".)
[1] There's nothing special about that list. It would
be about as good to know Eiffel, Forth, C, Ruby
and an assembly language. I must insist on the
assembly language, though.
MechaDragon X
"Ray Blaak" <bl...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:u3cjrr...@telus.net...
And looks better on the resume...
David Steuber
> Pascal writes:
> >Why do you want to create exe files?
>
> I want to create some freeware lisp apps in Windows so that people can see
> how useful Lisp is--and maybe encourage more people to use Lisp to develop
> applications.
That's all well and good. But real Free ware comes with source.
> If I have to pay for the tools I am using I can not afford to give my apps
> away.
>
> If I don't give my apps away, then I can not shout surprize that cool app
> you used was written in Lisp--and could not have be written as easily in
> C++/Java -- hopefully this will convince more people to try Lisp.
Again, providing the source would go a long way.
> If you get more people intrested in AI you'll get more people intrested in
> Lisp. My intrest in AI drove me to chose Lisp over Pascal, Java,
> VisualBasic, C, C++, and Java.
That is a debatable point. I imagine plenty of AI work is done in C++
or Java. There is a lot of mind share in these languages.
You have the sources for your LispM code. Here is a thought. See if
you can create a Lisp program that will take Lisp code and produce an
excecutable image for Windows, Linux, Mac, or whatever. Then you can
port the LispM stuff you have over. If the licensing allows it, you
can even share your work.
In the meantime, I will solve my cash problems by sticking with free
Lisp implimentations and not complaigning when they don't measure up
to the commercial ones.
Thaddeus L Olczyk
wrote:
>> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
>> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
>
>They are still in business, so obviously they don't need to expect it,
>they just get it.
>
For now. But will that last into the future? I ( directly ) know of
several businesses moving away from Lisp. I ( directly ) know of
no business moving towards Lisp. The high cost is one determining
factor. And it becomes a deadly loop. Once they can't get it from
some, they have to raise prices to get it from the rest. Once that
happens, they lose even more, so even more higher prices.
>> Allegro CL $3K with student discount. (The ed. that makes exe. files under
>> windows.) no wonder the price of Allegro CL is not on there web site.
>
>You get ACL for free for private use. Why do you want to create exe
>files? In the Lisp world, it's quite safe to assume that you want to be
>more than a hobbyist when you want to create exe files.
No you get ACL free for private *experimentation*, and it's only in
the screwed up perspective of the "Lisp world" that you would expect
to be safe assuming that a person who is a "hobbyist" ( and I include
proffesional programmers, who are not proffesional Lisp programmers )
doesn't want exes.
In fact I have a question for you. How many people are using Linux,
FreeBSD, or even MacOS 10 ( which I belive has a layer of "gnu"
software running it )? How many Windows users are using Cygwin?
Look at all those "hobbyists" who have found a need for exe's.
Frankly I was going to point out that a hobbyist might want to submit
an ICFP entry in the free ACL if he could ( and anyone who says they
wouldn't rather see an ICFP entry done in Lisp do well in ICFP is
lieing ). Or my inability to create a backend "whitelist" filter for
Popfile in the free version of ACL. Or distribute it on SourceForge.
One of the ways that a "hobbyist" can stop being a hobbyist is to
distribute an open source program demostrating his capabilities. etc.
But the whole wealth of opensource software that makes up Linux and
FreeBSD say it much better. The fact that most of that software is
written in C/C++ and Perl makes for powerfull recruiting tools for new
programmers, and there isn't a Lisp programmer in this group who
wouldn't die for a chance for Lisp to have a fraction of that exposure
( anyone who says otherwise is lieing ).
--------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD
Think twice, code once.
Thaddeus L Olczyk
<david....@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
>> Pascal writes:
>> >Why do you want to create exe files?
>>
>> I want to create some freeware lisp apps in Windows so that people can see
>> how useful Lisp is--and maybe encourage more people to use Lisp to develop
>> applications.
>
>That's all well and good. But real Free ware comes with source.
>
>> If I have to pay for the tools I am using I can not afford to give my apps
>> away.
>>
>> If I don't give my apps away, then I can not shout surprize that cool app
>> you used was written in Lisp--and could not have be written as easily in
>> C++/Java -- hopefully this will convince more people to try Lisp.
>
>Again, providing the source would go a long way.
>
I think you've gotten off the point here. Many people who download the
Freeware preffer executables. Me I download opensource in both binary
and source, hoping that things go the easy way with the source.
If he only distributed the source, then it would exacerbate the
situation more, as the people using the source would have to buy ACL
to compile it.
Friedrich Dominicus
> On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:58:37 +0200, Pascal Costanza <cost...@web.de>
> wrote:
>
> >> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> >> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
> >
> >They are still in business, so obviously they don't need to expect it,
> >they just get it.
> >
> For now. But will that last into the future? I ( directly ) know of
> several businesses moving away from Lisp. I ( directly ) know of
> no business moving towards Lisp.
Ok, we're the counterexample and moving towards Lisp, so now you know
(at least) one moving into the "right" direction.
> The high cost is one determining
> factor. And it becomes a deadly loop. Once they can't get it from
> some, they have to raise prices to get it from the rest. Once that
> happens, they lose even more, so even more higher prices.
The prices for LispWorks are very compatible.
>
> Frankly I was going to point out that a hobbyist might want to submit
> an ICFP entry in the free ACL if he could ( and anyone who says they
> wouldn't rather see an ICFP entry done in Lisp do well in ICFP is
> lieing ). Or my inability to create a backend "whitelist" filter for
> Popfile in the free version of ACL. Or distribute it on SourceForge.
> One of the ways that a "hobbyist" can stop being a hobbyist is to
> distribute an open source program demostrating his capabilities. etc.
> But the whole wealth of opensource software that makes up Linux and
> FreeBSD say it much better.
Well on Linux and FreeBSD you can use the free Lisp and everbody can
install them. Don't tell me you need executable for that.
> The fact that most of that software is
> written in C/C++ and Perl makes for powerfull recruiting tools for new
> programmers, and there isn't a Lisp programmer in this group who
> wouldn't die for a chance for Lisp to have a fraction of that exposure
> ( anyone who says otherwise is lieing ).
Hobbyist spend billons of dollars for the Hobby. So why can't you do
the same with Lisp implementations?
Friedrich
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
"Friedrich Dominicus" <fr...@q-software-solutions.com> wrote in message
news:87issm3...@fbigm.here...
> Hobbyist spend billons of dollars for the Hobby. So why can't you do
> the same with Lisp implementations?
What hobby, Classic Cars? There Rare, and costly.
The Classic Car company won't make
money by increasing the userbase--
software companyies will because
the more popular a lang. is
the more companyies will use it.
Reading Novels? I don't think you
know what a library is.
Listening to Classical Music? There is
a new invention called a radio.
Drawing? It cost under $200 not over
$2K to get started.
Poetry? Most artists are in it for
the fame not the money; I know a
lot of them from my college.
Rec. Drugs? You get an instant
benefit--that Lisp or even C++ won't
give you. Lisp is also less dangerous
to do. :)
Other Computer Lang.? Most other
Lang.'s give free or low cost (under
$150) compilers that will, yes will,
produce exe code.
>
> Friedrich
>
Do you think bitter people, not just Fred but everyone against a low cost
Lisp solution for hobbyist, and also for people who don't get why a hobbyist
would want an exe file, trying to fight for Commercial Lisps and telling
people to pay thousands for a compiler is a great way to attract people to
want to learn Lisp :)
This thread was starting to get in the right direction, but I guess that
Lisp
programmers really don't want to attract new users. I thought I was
wrong but most of the people on this thread seem to be against a
hobbyist who would like executable code.
You need a exe file if you want to trick people into using Lisp. Write a
very good freeware prog. in Lisp that people find useful and more
people will be willing to learn Lisp because thay saw first hand
what Lisp could do. You can't do that with source code--people
already have to want to use Lisp with that approch.
If people already wanted to learn Lisp we wouldn't need to attract
them to our language, now would we?
No, we wouldn't.
Franz,
PS
Think of Linux. They give Linux away free. But, if you need support
for comercial apps. you'll have to pay highly for it. I just want the
same done with Lisps. Hobbyists will not need support, and
will increase our user base.
I know I want a larger userbase of Lisp programmers; I can't
say the same about everyone else.
PPS
I'll rant until people understand the a good low cost
solution to making Lisp exe files is a big step
in the right direction to making Lisp a popular
language.
It must be in ANSI standard Lisp because only
then will the source code be portable.
PPPS
Out of neticate I warned you that this was
a rant. BTW, I kind of like Erik N.'s posting style.
Joe Marshall
> I can make sure I only get Lisp courses so I don't have to learn an
> other language.
That's an interesting approach. While I agree that knowing a few more
languages is a good thing, it is often easier to approach a language
as `like lisp, but stupid syntax and no GC'.
Friedrich Dominicus
> "Friedrich Dominicus" <fr...@q-software-solutions.com> wrote in message
> news:87issm3...@fbigm.here...
>
> > Hobbyist spend billons of dollars for the Hobby. So why can't you do
> > the same with Lisp implementations?
> What hobby, Classic Cars?
Oh come one: skiing, surfing, sailing, booting, motorcycling,
collecting, buying jewlry, golfing, tennis, horse-riding and and
Regards
Friedrich
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
You can rent skis, motorcycles, sail boats 4 a reasonable price.
You don't have to pay for a horse to ride one -- you can
pay for tine,
I think you can rent surf boards too.
booting -- do you mean drinking until you have to dump the
liquor into a boot because you drank too much ;) or boating.
You can't rent a Commercial Lisp Compiler. Don't give me the
copying excuse. You can rent movies at Blockbuster--they cost
much more to make than a Lisp Compiler and can be copied
just as easily.
If a firm makes illegal copys of a commercial Lisp--the corporate
lawyers can get more then the cost of the software from the bad
company. (But, it would give more people who want to learn Lisp
easy access to a high grade Dev. Env.)
If you can rent software--please tell me where.
USER @fun Dr. Leary
So is LSD Manufacture--why don't you include that
too. I'd rather help people learn coding than
LSD manufacture--but I guess u differ.
Tim Leary ;)
Thaddeus L Olczyk
Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
>Why is Allegro so pricey?
All that has been said and done, in the end it comes down to one
thing. Franz has to make back what it cost to produce ACL, and
a significant profit. If they do not make enough of a profit to
make investing in ACL better then the stock or bond market
( over the long term about a 10% ROI ), or other ventures,
then investors wont invest. ( Worse Franz is probably considered
a high risk venture because looking at it's balance sheet, client base
and the direction things have been going over the last 5, 10 years,
the probabilty is high that it won't be around much longer. So I
suspect that investors want a bigger ROI, probably at least 15%. )
They don't have a large customer base sso they have to charge what
they charge.
Make no mistake. If they could charge less they would. It would
certainly make it easier to sell to businesses, consulting companies
and individual consultants/contractors with a lower price. That in
turn would lead to a larger customer base, reducing the need for a big
profit. The larger customer base would mean more programmers
that know CL, which would mean that companies would be more willing
to use CL ( ie a larger cuctomer base ). The problem is that they
really can't right now.
Paolo Amoroso
_ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
> How can Commercial Lisp Vendors expect people to pay 2K or more
> for there Lisp Environment when you can get a Lispm for around 1K.
Ever run a business?
Paolo
--
Paolo Amoroso <amo...@mclink.it>
Paolo Amoroso
_ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
> I want to create some freeware lisp apps in Windows so that people can see
> how useful Lisp is--and maybe encourage more people to use Lisp to develop
> applications.
If you are going to use you LispM as a development environment, how do you
plan to deploy the application on Windows and distribute it as freeware?
Paul Wallich
Thaddeus L Olczyk <olc...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2003 18:45:41 GMT, "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _
> Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
>
> >Why is Allegro so pricey?
[...]
> Make no mistake. If they could charge less they would. It would
> certainly make it easier to sell to businesses, consulting companies
> and individual consultants/contractors with a lower price. That in
> turn would lead to a larger customer base, reducing the need for a big
> profit. The larger customer base would mean more programmers
> that know CL, which would mean that companies would be more willing
> to use CL ( ie a larger cuctomer base ). The problem is that they
> really can't right now.
That's not necessarily true, at least not for large values of "less". As
long a CL is not a mainstream language (and maybe even if it were) the
cost of producing and maintaining the software mayb be less important
than the cost of supporting it. Even if Allegro were utterly stable,
customers would need support for installation, configuring, twiddly
little aspects of use and so forth. If anything, a larger customer base
would mean higher-than-proportional increases in the cost of providing
that support. If the market were orders of magnitude bigger, you might
be able to get away with a microsoft- or intuit-style support system,
but there's an enormous gulf between here and there.
paul
_ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @hotmail.com Franz Kafka
"Paolo Amoroso" <amo...@mclink.it> wrote in message
news:mDe5Pp7GXSAfwe...@4ax.com...
You can develop CL application--but you have to use ANSI CL, CLOS, and maybe
CLIM--as long as you stay away from Lispm only functions your fine.
A friend of mine wrote Pascal's code in Genera 8.3 and Paul Garham's
with-gensyms macro. It ran fine.
BK
> > Make no mistake. If they could charge less they would. <snip>
>
> That's not necessarily true, at least not for large values of "less". As
> long a CL is not a mainstream language (and maybe even if it were) the
> cost of producing and maintaining the software mayb be less important
> than the cost of supporting it. Even if Allegro were utterly stable,
> customers would need support for installation, configuring, twiddly
> little aspects of use and so forth. If anything, a larger customer base
> would mean higher-than-proportional increases in the cost of providing
> that support. If the market were orders of magnitude bigger, you might
> be able to get away with a microsoft- or intuit-style support system,
> but there's an enormous gulf between here and there.
I wonder if that was behind Digitools decision to open source OpenMCL.
At first it would seem crazy that they did this, paricularly as they
are only on the Mac platform which is a smaller community already.
But then, it may well be that a slightly-out of step and less complete
open source version will work in their favour. It allows more folks to
try Lisp on the Mac withough having to pay for the trial thus
potentially creating a larger user base but Digitool don't have to pay
a dime to support it.
Clearly if someone is going to deliver a commercial product they will
probably think twice whether they want to base their product on an
open source compiler without support, unless they have a resident Lisp
hacker who knows the whole thing well enough to fix everything that
might pop up.
Gary Byers mentioned that there were just under 60 people on the
OpenMCL mailing lisp, that was last December. That doesn't seem to be
a lot. If this was shareware and everyone had paid $100 for it, then
the author would have received $6000, that will certainly not be
enough to pay for the work it takes to make something like OpenMCL or
even Roger Corman's discontinued PowerLisp.
And in the case of OpenMCL, the excuse that people won't trust it
cause its shareware/open source doesn't really count because the bulk
of the code came from Digitool and at least when it was split off was
largely identical to the commercial MCL, so the quality of the product
cannot possibly be in question.
rgds
bk
BK
> You can't rent a Commercial Lisp Compiler. Don't give me the
> copying excuse. You can rent movies at Blockbuster--they cost
> much more to make than a Lisp Compiler and can be copied
> just as easily.
I asked my mother in law if she would rent the lisp compiler at $2 a
day or the Blockbuster video at $2 a day. She said she'd rather rent
the video. I asked again if she'd rent the lisp compiler if she had no
choice between the compiler and the video and she said if she can't
have the video she'd not rent the compiler either.
I guess this would be so for the overwhelming majority of people who
rent videos. It doesn't seem to be a sensible analogy by whatever
standard.
> If you can rent software--please tell me where.
DEC used to have a software rental program. I don't know if HPQ still
do it, though.
rgds
bk
Bob Bechtel
agree with you. There's a solution -- go build the tool that you want
yourself. If your analysis is correct, the world will beat a path to
your door, and you will have inarguably demonstrated your chops in the
open/free software environment (whichever you consider appropriate).
Even before you're finished, others may be convinced of your plan and
join in to get you to the goal more quickly. And just think of the
satisfaction in seeing the naysayers fall by the wayside!
Arguing that someone else should do something you want is usually futile
unless you can demonstrate to their satisfaction (not yours) how they're
better off doing so -- and making assertions about what might happen is
not demonstration.
bob bechtel
Christopher Browne
> Paul Wallich <p...@panix.com> wrote ...
> At first it would seem crazy that they did this, paricularly as they
> are only on the Mac platform which is a smaller community already.
>
> But then, it may well be that a slightly-out of step and less
> complete open source version will work in their favour. It allows
> more folks to try Lisp on the Mac withough having to pay for the
> trial thus potentially creating a larger user base but Digitool
> don't have to pay a dime to support it.
What it buys them is a perceived reduction of risk.
If they go belly up, the code at the base is clearly not lost.
And there *might* be some contributions that come back.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #83. "If I'm eating dinner with the hero,
put poison in his goblet, then have to leave the table for any reason,
I will order new drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide
whether or not to switch with him." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Steven M. Haflich
>>Why is Allegro so pricey?
>
> I have no special knowledge of this, but I suspect the reason is that
> they do not want to make their money on Lisp sales, but rather on Lisp
> support. Implicitly, by screening out people who think that this is
> "pricey" they are eliminating people who don't have money for support,
> and streamlining their commercial dialog to be established companies
> with adequate cash flow to both be able to buy support and appreciate
> its need. From the tone of the your message, it sounds to me like if
> this is their plan, it's working.
Kent, my old friend, while your analysis has a lot of merit, I find that
it is expressed much more sourly than necessary, and that it distorts
the market reality.
[But first, I need to state that while I am an employee of Franz, I am
here voicing my own opinion, not that of Franz. If you want Franz'
opinion, send email to in...@franz.com.]
I don't think it is fair to talk about Franz' strategy of sales vs.
support. Please think back to that initial X3J13 meeting where the
ad hoc committee on the purpose of the language consed up the words
"Industrial Lisp". Indeed, Franz bundles support into its pricing,
but the reason (it seems to me, but not necessarily to Franz Inc.
itself) is that the company's support mechanisms are willing and
prepared to do what it takes to make a customer's application
succeed. It isn't _always_ possible to achieve success, but _usually_
Franz seems able to make customer applications succeed. Some
customers never need this service, and some customers need it
overmuch, but in my humble non-Franz-Inc-sanctioned opinion, that is
what customers are paying for. Given that a single programmer costs
more than an order of magnitude more than typical license fees,
paying for license and support is a wise bet for a commercial
enterprise. I'd like to think that this would be objectively true
even if those support fees were not what pays for my groceries.
As an example, last month I was packetized without checksum and put
onto a plane to Japan to work one week of 16-hour days helping an
important customer with several difficult application problems.
This trip cost more than Franz earns from this customer (even
assuming my lost time is completely valueless) but the result is that
the customer's application was delivered and remains in production.
If I were a CL hobbyist living on scattered consulting, I probably
would not be willing or able to pay for this backup support. But if
I were a solvent company with contractual obligations of my own, it
would be silly not to pay for it. There is room in the CL ecosystem
for both kinds of animals.
I feel (but this is in no way an official Franz statement) that Franz
has opted for a particular region of the price/support curve, and if
no one occupied that region, the Common Lisp we all love would be
relegated to an obscure historical hobbyist language. The Lisp machine
hobbyist lives on another distant region of that curve, and it is good
that he is there maintaining that different region of the CL universe.
(The LM was a wonderful peak of programmability, and will remain so as
long as enthusiasts can find enough low-sulfur coal to shovel into
those machines' boilers to keep them running... :-)
Ng Pheng Siong
> You need a exe file if you want to trick people into using Lisp. Write a
> very good freeware prog. in Lisp that people find useful and more
> people will be willing to learn Lisp because thay saw first hand
> what Lisp could do.
Here's a deal: I have a commercial Lispworks license. You write your very
good freeware prog in portable CL and I'll build your Windows exe for you.
What very good freeware prog do you have in mind to write?
--
Ng Pheng Siong <ng...@netmemetic.com>
http://firewall.rulemaker.net -+- Manage Your Firewall Rulebase Changes
http://www.post1.com/home/ngps -+- Open Source Python Crypto & SSL
Fernando Mato Mira
> "Friedrich Dominicus" <fr...@q-software-solutions.com> wrote in message
> news:871xza3...@fbigm.here...
> > "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
> writes:
> >
> > > "Friedrich Dominicus" <fr...@q-software-solutions.com> wrote in message
> > > news:87issm3...@fbigm.here...
> > >
> > > > Hobbyist spend billons of dollars for the Hobby. So why can't you do
> > > > the same with Lisp implementations?
> > > What hobby, Classic Cars?
> >
> > Oh come one: skiing, surfing, sailing, booting, motorcycling,
> > collecting, buying jewlry, golfing, tennis, horse-riding and and
> >
> > Regards
> > Friedrich
>
> You can't rent a Commercial Lisp Compiler. Don't give me the
You can't rent a model railroad, either. You can join a club, though.
Found a Lisp club with a floating license server. Demand floating
licenses if your selected vendor does not provide this option.
Jacek Generowicz
> Gary Byers mentioned that there were just under 60 people on the
> OpenMCL mailing lisp,
Doesn't the exstence of gmane.org makes that number even more
meaningless than it would otherwise be?
Matthias Heiler
On Mon, 05 May 2003 18:45:41 GMT, "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _
Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
>
>Why is Allegro so pricey?
Because they can be. It think it's ok for a company to charge as much as
the market is willing to pay. (As long as that company doesn't have a
monopoly, that is.)
The more interesting question is: Why do people and companies agree to these
prices if they can get 'alternatives' for free? There must be something
which makes ACL et al. _much_ more valuable than just plain-old-standard CL
which you can get decently implemented for free.
I have never used a commercial CL implementation, but I _guess_ it's the
libraries shipping with these systems. Is that right?
Matthias
Paul F. Dietz
> The more interesting question is: Why do people and companies agree to these
> prices if they can get 'alternatives' for free? There must be something
> which makes ACL et al. _much_ more valuable than just plain-old-standard CL
> which you can get decently implemented for free.
The cost of ACL is a small fraction of the cost of the employee using ACL,
so the increase in productivity doesn't have to be very large to be worthwhile.
Paul
David Steuber
> If you can rent software--please tell me where.
I believe that is the direction Microsoft is heading with Windows.
And all their other products.