Is LISP dying?

430 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jul 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/10/99
to
Hi,

Apologies for the attention grabbing title.

I'm from the UK, and self-taught as a software engineer - which
means that I've used a lot of C and Java, but have only used more
"academic" :-) languages in my spare time and, even if I had done
comp-sci, would have met Prolog and/or ML rather than Lisp.

Despite all that, I've recently decided to learn Lisp because it seems
to be one of the few languages that lets you use whatever
programming paradigm you choose, rather than forcing you in one
direction. I've ordered (and, today, received) Norvig's book on AI
which looks fascinating (I realise it may be out-of date in that it
doesn't contain "modern" AI, but it still seems like a nice book).

However - and forgive the preceding biography but it is intended to set
the ground and show this isn't flame-bait - I get the impression that
Lisp is on the way out. Now this is only a vague impression (more so
because, being in the UK which, whether we like it or not, is in Europe,
Lisp was never "in" here) - but with Harlequin going belly-up it seems
legitimate to ask: is Lisp a dying language?

If so, what is it's current level of use? And what next? Dylan?!
ML?!!! C++?!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It strikes me as a unique and very powerful
language, so what went wrong?

By "dying" I mean in decline, I would guess it's still used more than
any other "second league" language (anything other than C, C++ and maybe
Java) - but for how long?

As I hope is obvious, I would be happy to be corrected!

Thanks,
Andrew

http://www.andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk/index.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Craig Brozefsky

unread,
Jul 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/10/99
to
Andrew Cooke <and...@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> writes:

> However - and forgive the preceding biography but it is intended to set
> the ground and show this isn't flame-bait - I get the impression that
> Lisp is on the way out. Now this is only a vague impression (more so
> because, being in the UK which, whether we like it or not, is in Europe,
> Lisp was never "in" here) - but with Harlequin going belly-up it seems
> legitimate to ask: is Lisp a dying language?

It's one of the oldest languages still in active use. Many
organizations and individuals are still using it. There are several
free implementations, including one in the public domain that is rather
good, and still several commercial vendors.

So, it has more commercial implementations than perl, python, and tcl,
put together. It's an ANSI standard (CommonLisp that is). It has
more free implementations than just about any other language except
scheme (a member of the Lisp family itself).

--
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
I say woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and yet
imprudent in 'dem outside -Sizzla

Lyman S. Taylor

unread,
Jul 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/10/99
to
Andrew Cooke wrote:
...

> direction. I've ordered (and, today, received) Norvig's book on AI
> which looks fascinating (I realise it may be out-of date in that it
> doesn't contain "modern" AI, but it still seems like a nice book).

It is a good book. Time will not cause that become untrue, just give it
more cohorts.


> Lisp is on the way out. Now this is only a vague impression (more so
> because, being in the UK which, whether we like it or not, is in Europe,
> Lisp was never "in" here) - but with Harlequin going belly-up it seems
> legitimate to ask: is Lisp a dying language?

My impression is that there a plethora of factors involved in Harlequin going "belly-up".
[ I'd label it as being in intensive care, a number of people recover
from being on the critical list. That isn't quite the same as being
in the morgue.]
"Lisp", "ML", and "Dylan", the languages, in and of themselves weren't the major cause of
these problems for Harlequin. Harlequin also had an "experimental" corportate
structure, for their relative size, which I surmise was also a factor.

There are dozens of ways to run your company out of business that have nothing
to do with whether you are providing a product/service that is viable.
The "lisp business" isn't a license to print money so if you stumble across one
of the dozen you may trip and fall.

Everyone keeps pointing the figure at the Language business. I get the impression
that the margins shrank, perhaps quickly, on the printing side of house too.
( there were likely cross subsidies, but whether they were "necessary" or not
is likely debatable) Harlequin isn't a publically accountable firm so what exactly
happened is somewhat a mystery.


> By "dying" I mean in decline, I would guess it's still used more than
> any other "second league" language (anything other than C, C++ and maybe
> Java) - but for how long?

"second league"? In terms of number of lines in commerical use I
imagine Cobol puts all of the above into the "second league". It doesn't
have no where near the "hype" factor going for it though. So perhaps it is
a matter of perception.

This all has be taken in perspective. If C++ and Java grow at 50% per year and
"Lisp" grows at 20% per year is Lisp "dying"? Some will say yes. Possibly
because the "biggest herd" always wins or that the language business is some sort
of zero sum game. So growth and overall percentage is all that ever counts. Others
will say no. All ecosystems have niches; being in a niche doesn't mean you're
"dying". "Lisp" has a proven track record as a long term survivor.

IMHO, if "Harlequin" does disappear and no new competitor pops up to replace it then
"Lisp" isn't very healthly. A reasonable amount of competition keeps the vendor(s)
honest. Although "Lisp" has more then enough "external" competition to contend with.


---

Lyman

nco...@bridgetrix.com

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to

>
> IMHO, if "Harlequin" does disappear and no new competitor pops up to
replace it then
> "Lisp" isn't very healthly. A reasonable amount of competition keeps
the vendor(s)
> honest. Although "Lisp" has more then enough "external" competition to
contend with.


A Harlequin tech support representative I've been corresponding with is
under the impression that they'll be bought up soon and continue with Lisp
virtually uninterrupted.

As to the first topic, I'm just about to start a job search and have
been informed there aren't any Lisp jobs out there.

Neil Cohen
Bridge Trix
Producers of the Bobby Wolff Bridge Mentoring Series
http://www.bridgetrix.com

Andi Kleen

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
Craig Brozefsky <cr...@red-bean.com> writes:
>
> So, it has more commercial implementations than perl, python, and tcl,
> put together. It's an ANSI standard (CommonLisp that is). It has
> more free implementations than just about any other language except
> scheme (a member of the Lisp family itself).

<offtopic and doesn't really matter, but anyways>

I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.


-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.

Rob Warnock

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
+---------------

| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
+---------------

Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?


-Rob

[*] This is one of the frequent criticisms of Scheme! ;-}

-----
Rob Warnock, 8L-855 rp...@sgi.com
Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA

Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
[I've restricted this to comp.lang.lisp only, x posting to
comp.lang.misc seems like a bad idea to me..]

* Andrew Cooke wrote:
> However - and forgive the preceding biography but it is intended to set

> the ground and show this isn't flame-bait - I get the impression that


> Lisp is on the way out. Now this is only a vague impression (more so
> because, being in the UK which, whether we like it or not, is in Europe,
> Lisp was never "in" here) - but with Harlequin going belly-up it seems
> legitimate to ask: is Lisp a dying language?

No, it's not dying. Statistics are hard to come by and not often very
useful, but the evidence I see is that it is doing reasonably well,
albeit in areas that are not very visible. A few years ago things
were worse (I guess as reaction to all the AI hype which Lisp got
associated with), but I think things are OK now. I think use is
increasing.

As far as I know, neither Harlequin nor Lucid before them went under
as a result of their Lisp business: Lucid (I think) went under because
of a failed (but very interesting) C++ development system, and
Harlequin went under because of something-not-Lisp.

--tim

Martin Rodgers

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
In article <7m9qk7$8c...@fido.engr.sgi.com>, rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com
says...

> Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
> How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?

If we only count the systems that a single programmer knows, we might
dismiss any language as irrelevant. The numbers argument is always a
weak one (see my final point, below). The numbers only matter when you
can count the number of implementations on the fingers of one hand and
such implementations require considerable effort to create.

I've known Forth programmers who create a Forth just like sneezing. I
wouldn't be suprised if there are Scheme implementors who can do the
same thing, but in Forth there's a very fine line between using Forth
and implementing Forth. (It used to take me about 3 weeks to create a
Forth from scratch, and I'm no expert.) In Lisp, we tend to build the
language up rather than down. In Forth, we go up _and_ down.

Glancing over my monitor at my bookcase, I spy a book that features a
series of Scheme implementations, none of them very big. If we're
talking about commercial and freeware Forths, that's another matter.
Systems like that tend to need documentation.

It looks to me like Forth is as much in decline as Common Lisp and
Scheme, and neither language is in danger of dying. Perhaps we should
be counting programmers instead of systems, but that's much harder to
do. Comparing web/ftp logs might be easier.

All I know is, everytime somebody asks if (or claims that) a language
is dead, dozens of programmers jump up and shout about how healthy it
is, and how many people are using it. Then somebody mentions Cobol.
--
Remove insect from address | You can never browse enough
will write code that writes code that writes code for food

William Tanksley

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
On 11 Jul 1999 10:11:19 GMT, Rob Warnock wrote:
>Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
>+---------------
>| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
>+---------------

>Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...


>How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?

Grin... There's at least one Forth for every Forth programmer. It's
almost a rite of passage -- to be a Forth programmer you have to implement
your own Forth. Preferably experimental in nature, but otherwise
compatible.

With the arrival of ANSI this slowed down; now that Chuck's mentioned
Machine Forth it's sped back up again.

>-Rob

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

Christopher B. Browne

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
On 11 Jul 1999 10:11:19 GMT, Rob Warnock <rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com> posted:

>Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
>+---------------
>| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
>+---------------
>
>Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
>How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?

There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
for Atari ST.

I count 28 distinct implementations at
<http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
comprehensive.
--
Lisp Users:
Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

Stig Hemmer

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
:Is LISP dying?

This is a frequently asked question, even if not a Frequently Asked
Question.

A short summary:

Lisp took a hit when the "AI wave" faded away, but is recovering
nicely.

The reason Lisp seems so small is that the rest of the computer
industry is so enourmous.

Stig Hemmer,
Jack of a Few Trades.

Christopher R. Barry

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
nco...@bridgetrix.com writes:

> As to the first topic, I'm just about to start a job search and have
> been informed there aren't any Lisp jobs out there.

There are hundreds of thousands of Lisp jobs out there. It's a matter
of your perspective. Just because when you look through ads all you
see is "BS with 3 years experience and strong C, C++, Perl and Java
skills..." doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use Lisp for the
job, or at least part of the job.

Also, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission....

Christopher

Eric O'Dell

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
On 11 Jul 1999 19:47:05 +0200, Stig Hemmer <st...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:

>The reason Lisp seems so small is that the rest of the computer
>industry is so enourmous.

I'm glad someone pointed this out. If language X used to be used for
25% of all applications (as if we have _any_ way of acquiring reliable
statistics like that), but is now being used for only 5% of all
applications, one might be tempted to say it is in decline --- but not
if the number of applications has grown by, say, 500%.

Advocates of the popular languages/methodologies du jour like to say
that their favorite language will soon eliminate everything else, the
current offenders being C++ and Java. But this is pure bull; the
number of languages and methodologies continues to grow, which is,
IMHO, a sign of the increasing diversity and maturity of the field.

If COBOL can persist as long as it has, it's a safe bet that our
grandchildren will be debugging C programs.


-E.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "I have come a very long way from myself only to realize that |
| identity is a skill and self-betrayal is a habit. Once lost, the |
| former is very hard to regain; once gained, the latter is very |
| hard to lose." ---I. Corvus, _The Europe of Our Dreams_ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
http://members.tripod.com/~abadger

Eric O'Dell

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:58:38 GMT, cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R.
Barry) wrote:

>There are hundreds of thousands of Lisp jobs out there. It's a matter
>of your perspective. Just because when you look through ads all you
>see is "BS with 3 years experience and strong C, C++, Perl and Java
>skills..." doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use Lisp for the
>job, or at least part of the job.
>
>Also, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission....

This is true. I just finished a contract job using C when what was
requested was Perl. In this particular case, my employer had no
in-house programmers, and it was easy to persuade him that a C
programmer would be easier to find down the road than a Perl
programmer. (After I convinced him that CGI scripts don't have to be
written in Perl, of course, which took some doing.)

Smaller shops are more open to this sort of thing than big corporate
installations, but there are exceptions everywhere. The ads in the
paper are often discouraging, but then again, they are often written
by HR personnel who are just repeating buzzwords.

Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
James Hague <jha...@dadgum.com> writes:

> Still, I think Lisp has some trouble because it's not as easy to use
> for shippable desktop applications as, say, C. Most of the free
> Lisp systems tend to be rather large with little thought given to
> turnkey applications. The best commercial Lisp on the
> market--Allegro Common Lisp--isn't royalty free. On the other hand,
> desktop applications are a small part of the overall picture.

what do you mean desktop application?

lisp suffers because it's hard to make hello world type starter
programs that stand alone in a lisp hostile operating system, e.g.,
unix, microsoft dos/windows[1].

lisp tends to seem large and awkward in the context of unix. C has
run-time library support and all kinds of operating system hooks. the
comparison is unfair, however, a completely fair appraisal is
unrealistic.

if you mean by desktop applications things like spreadsheets and
wordprocessors, then i would think that lisp would be the perfect
language. these applications are large and complex in the first
place. lisp is good at large and complex. a lisp run-time would be
lost in the noise. consider how well emacs works for text. now
imagine a lisp based wordprocessor. unfortunately, no one uses lisp
for these but that is more out of ignorance than sound judgement imho.

[1] (format t "hello world~%") is certainly easy. the hard part is
getting the operating system to cooperate in loading and launching
lisp to process this.

--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!

Pierre R. Mai

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
nco...@bridgetrix.com writes:

> As to the first topic, I'm just about to start a job search and have
> been informed there aren't any Lisp jobs out there.

Hmmm, there was a job ad on here a couple of days ago. Last time I
had a look at the offerings of a popular Job search engine over here,
I had no problem finding 3-5 jobs featuring Lisp here in Europe.

So I think there are a number of Lisp jobs out there. OTOH you
probably have to be more flexible to take advantage of them
(i.e. relocating, changing areas of interest, etc.), than for many
other languages that are a tad more popular.

Regs, Pierre.

--
Pierre Mai <pm...@acm.org> PGP and GPG keys at your nearest Keyserver
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-
bashing." [Microsoft memo, see http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html]

Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jul 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/11/99
to
jos...@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:

> In article <m2g12vd...@sophia.axel.nom>, Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> reiterated false information:


>
> > lisp suffers because it's hard to make hello world type starter
> > programs that stand alone in a lisp hostile operating system, e.g.,
> > unix, microsoft dos/windows[1].
>

> Have you ever tried? LWW? ACL? Golden CL? CLOE? LW? LCL?
> Eclipse CL? Clisp? GCL? CMU CL? CLICC? MCL? Chestnut CL?
> Corman Lisp? Exper Common Lisp? Procyon Common Lisp? L?
> Codemist Common Lisp? ECoLisp? LinkLisp? ...?

> You mean *all* these Lisp system have been developed
> without making it easy to develop applications?

i use linux and windows nt. i've tried CMUCL, clisp and ACL5. i find
that they are all awkward at producing a hello world application.
sure i can open up a lisp and type (format t "hello world") or (load
"hello-world") and then run something. sometimes, i can put
#!/usr/bin/lisp at the top of a lisp script. some lisps get upset
about lines beginning with #!. in any event, they (at least CMUCL,
clisp and trial ACL5) don't produce a stand alone binary i can copy to
someone. maybe i am doing something wrong.

i am not trying to run anyone down. i just started using lisp about
6-7 months ago and i really like it. it's just that unix and windows
are set up to support C and C++. e.g., C has a largish libc these
days. it's pretty much always in core and therefore no one pays any
attention to it.

> > lisp tends to seem large and awkward in the context of unix.
>

> Have you ever tried? We are doing it all the time.

i use lisp for lots of stuff. i just wish i had an operating system
which offered better integration with lisp. perhaps i am missing some
things i could do? is there a lisp-howto for linux out there? i mean
paul graham's books, the hyperspec, steele's book, the cmucl user
manual, acls docs are great. however i haven't found a good low level
nitty gritty here's how you use emacs, here's how you get a bash shell
in linux to launch a lisp program, when should you clobber and restart
your lisp listener, how many lisps do you need going at once &c.

> > now imagine a lisp based wordprocessor. unfortunately, no one uses lisp
> > for these
>

> No one? How do you know?
>
> An example: Ever heard of Interleaf? From the Interleaf FAQ:

no, i had never heard of interleaf. thanks.

> 1.1. What is Interleaf?

[snip]

> That you don't have heard about publishing applications using Lisp
> doesn't mean that they don't exist (-> Schematext, Concordia, ...).

nod. thanks for the info.

Kent M Pitman

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]

Andrew Cooke <and...@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> writes:

> I get the impression that Lisp is on the way out.

Lisp marketing is tricky and not always done right. High tech
marketing in general is hard to do. Look at the Macintosh. Not
exactly a piece of junk. Keeping a company going is harder than
keeping interest in the company going. Cash flow can be very tricky.
If you like something, buy its products.

Btw, there are a LOT of users of Lisp who do not buy its products and
prefer to use freeware; if you ask me, it is that practice which hurts
the community most of all. People need to either contribute money (or
public effort, if they insist on using publicware) but they should not
expect to just "consume" without putting something back and have the
community survive.

Also, seems to me that you should not see yourself as an isolated
party. Your words can have an effect, and flamebait or not, you
should take that into account when choosing both the forum and the
subject line for posts--ESPECIALLY when cross-posting, since that
virtually assures you will see an audience of people who are talking
at crossed purposes with zero hope of resolution.

Subject lines such as the one you chose and the forum in which you
chose to express it (I've removed comp.lang.misc) are dangerous. You
potentially do damage to any product by asking these questions in a
highly visible forum if what you say is within a threshold range that
someone who isn't paying attention is just looking for an excuse to
say "oh, look, someone else was wondering the same".

The questions that are relevant are not "how many other people like
this" but "is this good for me". If you don't know what it takes to
make something "good enough" for your purposes, you probably have some
things about the technical world and the business world that you
should be more concerned about catching up on than you are about
worrying about lisp. A good engineer should know what it will take to
satisfy their needs, independent of the businesses involved. For
example, if I told you all the hammer companies in the world were
going out of business, would you (a) rush to buy a hammer or (b) try
to build your next house without a hammer?

How many other people are using something is not very relevant if
you're producing finished applications. What matters is speed, time
to market, If you really think your application can be written in some
other language, and that it won't take any more time to do it in
another language, then use the other language for that reason. Most
people who use Lisp use it because there are big gains to be had for
using it in terms of development time, debuggability, flexible
retargetability in case of changing conditions, etc. If you don't
need those features, and perhaps others like them, you are probably in
the space of "commodity languages" and not seeing the reason people
cling to Lisp. But if you need the things for which Lisp offers
almost unique solutions, then stop sending posts asking if Lisp is
dying and start trying to make it win. Such posts, flame bait or not,
simply do NOT help, and I for one think you should read my HTML page
on cross-posting and take it very seriously ESPECIALLY for posts like
this which are such high risk of being misinterpreted, confused, and
otherwise attracting random, uninformed opinions.

I have little tolerance for this kind of discussion these days. It's been
flogged to death and you'd be better off pulling up one of its clones
from Deja News (http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml) than making us repeat it.

If you really can't deal with CL because of the risk, try Scheme. But
please don't cross-post those communities either. For all its similarity,
it's really quite different and discussions that seek to draw us together
often backfire.

I may or may not follow up on this thread further, but I am going to try
not to. I really don't think this was a good use of my time, and I did
it only grudgingly as a form of damage control after you, intentionally
or otherwise, took the like-it-or-not negative act of starting this thread.
You'd have done better to just send private mail to someone you saw post here
or to do some thread research for similar threads before starting this.

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
In article <m2g12vd...@sophia.axel.nom>, Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> reiterated false information:

> lisp suffers because it's hard to make hello world type starter
> programs that stand alone in a lisp hostile operating system, e.g.,
> unix, microsoft dos/windows[1].

Have you ever tried? LWW? ACL? Golden CL? CLOE? LW? LCL?
Eclipse CL? Clisp? GCL? CMU CL? CLICC? MCL? Chestnut CL?
Corman Lisp? Exper Common Lisp? Procyon Common Lisp? L?
Codemist Common Lisp? ECoLisp? LinkLisp? ...?

You mean *all* these Lisp system have been developed
without making it easy to develop applications?

> lisp tends to seem large and awkward in the context of unix.

Have you ever tried? We are doing it all the time.

> now imagine a lisp based wordprocessor. unfortunately, no one uses lisp
> for these

No one? How do you know?

An example: Ever heard of Interleaf? From the Interleaf FAQ:

1.1. What is Interleaf?

Interleaf, Inc. provides software and services to allow organizations
to build, integrate and manage document systems. Interleaf software
covers the full range of document processes: accessing information,
developing text and graphic documents, putting them through their
review and revision processes, distributing them electronically or on
paper, and managing the entire process.

"Interleaf 6" is a document authoring and composition package. It
provides an integrated set of tools for creating compound documents:
word processing, graphics, data-driven business charts, tables,
equations, image editing, automated page layout, book building-
including automatic index and TOC, conditional document assembly. It
includes several features engineered to support the production of large
and complex document sets, including: centralized control over parts
or all of a document (format and/or content), global search and
replace/change on individual graphics objects regardless of specific
orientation or position, revision management.

Also available (on some platforms) is the optional Developer's Toolkit
(DTK) for customizing or extending the capabilities of the above
authoring tool. Developer's Toolkit is used to write programs in
Interleaf Lisp. Interleaf Lisp is similar to CommonLISP, but it also
contains an extensive set of classes, methods, and functions for
examining and changing almost all Interleaf objects, including
documents and their contents. DTK includes an editor, debugger,
compiler, listener, interpreter, and on-line documentation. Lisp code
developed with DTK, or even written with an ordinary editor, can be
executed by the stock system, so that customization or the provision of
special functionality is not limited to installations with DTK. In
fact, much of the distributed system is written in Lisp.

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
In article <m2n1x2o...@sophia.axel.nom>, Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

> about lines beginning with #!. in any event, they (at least CMUCL,
> clisp and trial ACL5) don't produce a stand alone binary i can copy to
> someone. maybe i am doing something wrong.

I've been doing this for years with MCL and now also with LWW.
We do all our scripting and applications on Unix with CLisp (favorite),
GCL (historical), siod (CGIs) and scsh (shell scripting).
We don't do any PERL, Python, TCL or any other lesser language.

> > Have you ever tried? We are doing it all the time.
>

> i use lisp for lots of stuff. i just wish i had an operating system
> which offered better integration with lisp.

Unless you get a Lispm, Macintosh Common Lisp has (IMBO)
the best OS integration.

> perhaps i am missing some
> things i could do? is there a lisp-howto for linux out there?

http://www.telent.net/lisp/
http://www.telent.net/lisp/howto.html
http://clisp.cons.org/~haible/clisp.html
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/table/contents.htm
...

> i mean
> paul graham's books, the hyperspec, steele's book, the cmucl user
> manual, acls docs are great. however i haven't found a good low level
> nitty gritty here's how you use emacs, here's how you get a bash shell
> in linux to launch a lisp program, when should you clobber and restart
> your lisp listener, how many lisps do you need going at once &c.

Such info is partly available. If you write something
or you find something on the web submit it to the
ALU pages:
http://www.elwoodcorp.com/alu/table/about.htm

Nick Levine

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to

>lisp suffers because it's hard to make hello world type starter
>programs that stand alone in a lisp hostile operating system, e.g.,
>unix, microsoft dos/windows[1].


I don't think this is true in the majority of (or, possibly, any) serious
lisps.

- n

Lars Marius Garshol

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to

* Tim Bradshaw

|
| Lucid (I think) went under because of a failed (but very
| interesting) C++ development system

Richard Gabriel writes about this in 'Patterns of Software', and they
did a Lisp development system first and then turned to C++. The
reasons they failed seemed to be a mix of bad luck, personnel problems
and a bad move. (The latter being to invest heavily in development for
an IBM platform that never came off the way it should have.)

This is from memory, though, so apply a grain of salt.

--Lars M.

Pierpaolo Bernardi

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
Johan Kullstam (kull...@ne.mediaone.net) wrote:

: sometimes, i can put


: #!/usr/bin/lisp at the top of a lisp script. some lisps get upset

: about lines beginning with #!.

You may put an appropriate SET-DISPATCH-MACRO-CHARACTER in all the CLs
initialization files, like the following (not tested, as I don't have
a lisp here):

(set-dispatch-macro-character
#\# #\!
#'(lambda (stream char foo)
(declare (ignore char foo))
(loop for c = (read-char stream nil nil)
while c
while (char/= c #\Newline))
(values)))

P.

Mark Carroll

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
In article <ncohen-1107...@isdn5-67.ip.realtime.net>,
<nco...@bridgetrix.com> wrote:
(snip)

> As to the first topic, I'm just about to start a job search and have
>been informed there aren't any Lisp jobs out there.

Hey, I use some Modula-3 in my current job, and also write Modula-3 as
a consultant to another place, and I would bet that Common Lisp is
much 'bigger' than M3! (-: Quite simply, you just have to find jobs
where your employers are more interested in the fact that you're
solving their problems than in imposing their half-baked notions of
the best way to go about it. So, if you don't find any Lisp jobs, look
for flexible software-development posts. If you can demonstrate decent
software you've already written, that goes a long way.

(Just be verbose in your comments, etc. to help colleagues with little
Lisp knowledge work on the code if they have to!)

This is fairly general, so fu set to c.l.m only.

-- Mark

Pierre R. Mai

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> writes:

> manual, acls docs are great. however i haven't found a good low level
> nitty gritty here's how you use emacs, here's how you get a bash shell
> in linux to launch a lisp program, when should you clobber and restart
> your lisp listener, how many lisps do you need going at once &c.

Bundled with the Debian CMU CL packages, there is a short file
somewhere in /usr/doc/cmucl/ that explains how to get Linux to start
lisp files via CMU CL...

Jerry Avins

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
Christopher B. Browne wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 1999 10:11:19 GMT, Rob Warnock <rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com> posted:
> >Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
> >+---------------
> >| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
> >+---------------
> >
> >Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
> >How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?
>
> There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
> for Atari ST.
>
> I count 28 distinct implementations at
> <http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
> comprehensive.

I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
Forth) for KIM-1. Also Aforth standalone for Z-80. Lately, I haven't
seen them on any list.


> --
> Lisp Users:
> Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
> cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

--
Engineering is the art | Let's talk about what
of making what you want | you need; you may see
from things you can get. | how to do without it.
---------------------------------------------------------

my-las...@mediaone.net

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

>i use linux and windows nt. i've tried CMUCL, clisp and ACL5. i find
>that they are all awkward at producing a hello world application.
>sure i can open up a lisp and type (format t "hello world") or (load

>"hello-world") and then run something. sometimes, i can put


>#!/usr/bin/lisp at the top of a lisp script. some lisps get upset

>about lines beginning with #!. in any event, they (at least CMUCL,
>clisp and trial ACL5) don't produce a stand alone binary i can copy to
>someone. maybe i am doing something wrong.
>

>i am not trying to run anyone down. i just started using lisp about
>6-7 months ago and i really like it. it's just that unix and windows
>are set up to support C and C++. e.g., C has a largish libc these
>days. it's pretty much always in core and therefore no one pays any
>attention to it.

Using lisp for "Hello world" is a bit like:

- using Macsyma to balance your check book
- using Adobe Photoshop to view GIF files
- Using the Hoover dam to recharge your AA batteries

It's value is in its capacity to assist in solving big/complex problems.
Once viewed in that light, it's a question of "look at this solution to our hard
problem" and not "I can't run it from my .cshrc".

All a matter of perspective.

[...]


>
>i use lisp for lots of stuff. i just wish i had an operating system

>which offered better integration with lisp. perhaps i am missing some
>things i could do? is there a lisp-howto for linux out there? i mean


>paul graham's books, the hyperspec, steele's book, the cmucl user

>manual, acls docs are great. however i haven't found a good low level
>nitty gritty here's how you use emacs, here's how you get a bash shell
>in linux to launch a lisp program, when should you clobber and restart
>your lisp listener, how many lisps do you need going at once &c.

On that sentiment you'll find lots of agreement. Lots of people run scheme
derivatives as login shells, but I'm not the guy to tell you how.


D. Tenny
my-las...@mediaone.net - no spam please

my-las...@mediaone.net

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) wrote:

>nco...@bridgetrix.com writes:
>
>> As to the first topic, I'm just about to start a job search and have
>> been informed there aren't any Lisp jobs out there.
>

>There are hundreds of thousands of Lisp jobs out there. It's a matter
>of your perspective. Just because when you look through ads all you
>see is "BS with 3 years experience and strong C, C++, Perl and Java
>skills..." doesn't necessarily mean that you can't use Lisp for the
>job, or at least part of the job.

I'm rather skeptical of the claim that there are hundreds of thousands of Lisp
jobs out there. In fact, I bet there are fewer than 50 paying lisp job openings
open this minute around the world. (I'm talking about commercial software
endeavors which are using lisp to code the software).

However I have one available and will post elsewhere in this conference.
Send resumes to (concatenate 'string "dtenny"
"@" "truesoft.com") if you want more info.

As to whether lisp is dying, I prefer to think of it as "commercially
challenged". It'll never die as long as there's interest. Finding a good
commercially supported lisp for business is getting more difficult however.
In this regard, Franz may be pricey, but their business model is probably more
solid than many lisp vendors which went before them, as evidenced by the fact
they're still around.

Matt Curtin

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:58:38 GMT,
cba...@2xtreme.net (Christopher R. Barry) said:

Christopher> Also, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission....

I like Eric Naggum's "Nike approach to Lisp":

No apologies. No excuses. Just do it.

--
Matt Curtin cmcu...@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/

Kucera, Rich

unread,
Jul 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/12/99
to
From: my-las...@mediaone.net [mailto:my-las...@mediaone.net]

> Franz may be pricey, but their business model is probably more
> solid than many lisp vendors which went before them, as evidenced by
the fact
> they're still around.
> D. Tenny

what's a "business model"?


Tim Bradshaw

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
[trimmed to comp.lang.lisp]

* my-last-name wrote:

> I'm rather skeptical of the claim that there are hundreds of
> thousands of Lisp jobs out there. In fact, I bet there are fewer
> than 50 paying lisp job openings open this minute around the
> world. (I'm talking about commercial software endeavors which are
> using lisp to code the software).

Well, there may not be very many jobs which say `Lisp' in the job
description. But I use Lisp every day at work (in a commercial
environment), though no one but me knows or cares about anything other
than whether stuff gets done. Lisp gets stuff done for me...

--tim

Rob Warnock

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Jerry Avins <jya...@erols.com> wrote:
+---------------

| I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
| Forth) for KIM-1...
+---------------

Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS, and in fact, was developed
by Richey Lary following his participation in the first installation of
MUMPS at Mass Gen. While (old, original) MUMPS had "string" as it's only
data type (like Tcl), FOCAL had "floating point" as its only data type.
(In fact, mutable "strings" were emulated with arrays of floating-point
numbers, each array element representing one character.)

Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & FORTRAN -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
"SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".


-Rob

p.s. My FOCAL-10 port involved some serious rewriting of the internal
FOCAL lexical subroutines SORTC & SORTJ to become two-instruction macros
that made heavy use of the PDP-10 byte pointer stuff and "byte strips"
to encode enumerated character equivalence classes. (Hey, it made it
run 25 times faster!) It used some really hairy "MACRO-10" (the PDP-10
assembler) macros to build those tables at compile time. Imagine my
immense delight when I was exposed to Common Lisp and learned that:

1. The style of table-building I'd been writing in PDP-10 assembler
could be done *much* more naturally -- almost trivially, in fact --
with Lisp macros; and

2. That Common Lisp had preserved at least a little of the flavor of
the PDP-10 variable-sized byte operations... with the same names,
even: LDB, DPB, BYTE, BYTE-SIZE, BYTE-POSITION. Way cool!

I just wish I'd gotten into Lisp 20 years earlier than I did... (*sigh*)

-----
Rob Warnock, 8L-855 rp...@sgi.com
Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511
Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA


Bart Lateur

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Rob Warnock wrote:

>Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & FORTRAN -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
>traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
>that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
>"SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".

This must be totally off-topic, but...

I thought I had read that one of the peculiarities of MUMPS is that the
was NO operator precedence? That everything was just executed from left
to right? That, therefore,

SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468

would be interpreted as

SET A=(((B+C)*4.35)-D)/2.468

?
Bart.

Michael Coughlin

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Christopher B. Browne wrote:

> On 11 Jul 1999 10:11:19 GMT, Rob Warnock <rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com
> posted:
> >Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
> >+---------------
> >| I would guess there are more Forths than Schemes.
> >+---------------

> >Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
> >How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?

> There were a half-dozen Forths for Atari 8 bit, and about a half-dozen
> for Atari ST.

> I count 28 distinct implementations at
> <http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
> comprehensive.

There are roughly a hundred versions of Forth that you can
get copies of. If you have a need for a special version of
Forth,
mention it on comp.lang.forth, and somebody will offer to send
you a copy of his unpublished version that he never got around
to
finishing. Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
of
a computer language. Count the number of textbooks on the
shelves
of bookstores intead. I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

When I meet people who tell me they want to learn all
about computing, including programming, I want to say learn
Forth. But I know that woun't work since they can't even go
to the bookstore and buy a book about it. Well at least they
can still get some nice books about Logo to get then started.

--
Michael Coughlin m-cou...@ne.mediaone.net Cambridge, MA USA

Fernando D. Mato Mira

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Michael Coughlin wrote:
     There are roughly a hundred versions of Forth that you can
get copies of. If you have a need for a special version of
Forth,
mention it on comp.lang.forth, and somebody will offer to send
you a copy of his unpublished version that he never got around
to
finishing. Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
What would be cool would be an Open Sourced OpenFirmware.
-- 
((( DANGER )) LISP BIGOT (( DANGER )) LISP BIGOT (( DANGER )))

Fernando D. Mato Mira                    
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking            
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM                             
Jaquet-Droz 1                   email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel                 tel:       +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland                       FAX:       +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch      www.vrai.com     ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
 

Jerry Avins

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Rob Warnock wrote:
>
> Jerry Avins <jya...@erols.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | I have Forth for the AIM-65 in ROM, SYM-1 on tape, and FOCAL (a sort-of
> | Forth) for KIM-1...
> +---------------
>
> Uh... Having ported Doug Wrege's version of PDP-8 FOCAL/F to the PDP-10
> Spring 1971, I can say with some confidence that FOCAL isn't even *vaguely*
> Forth-like -- it's much closer to JOSS & MUMPS, and in fact, was developed
> by Richey Lary following his participation in the first installation of
> MUMPS at Mass Gen. While (old, original) MUMPS had "string" as it's only
> data type (like Tcl), FOCAL had "floating point" as its only data type.
> (In fact, mutable "strings" were emulated with arrays of floating-point
> numbers, each array element representing one character.)
>
> Like JOSS & MUMPS & BASIC & FORTRAN -- but unlike Forth -- FOCAL has
> traditional infix arithmetic with "the usual" operator priorities,
> that is, the assignment "SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468" is interpreted as
> "SET A=((B+(C*4.35))-(D/2.468))".
>
> -Rob
>
> p.s. My FOCAL-10 port involved some serious rewriting of the internal
> FOCAL lexical subroutines SORTC & SORTJ to become two-instruction macros
> that made heavy use of the PDP-10 byte pointer stuff and "byte strips"
> to encode enumerated character equivalence classes. (Hey, it made it
> run 25 times faster!) It used some really hairy "MACRO-10" (the PDP-10
> assembler) macros to build those tables at compile time. Imagine my
> immense delight when I was exposed to Common Lisp and learned that:
>
> 1. The style of table-building I'd been writing in PDP-10 assembler
> could be done *much* more naturally -- almost trivially, in fact --
> with Lisp macros; and
>
> 2. That Common Lisp had preserved at least a little of the flavor of
> the PDP-10 variable-sized byte operations... with the same names,
> even: LDB, DPB, BYTE, BYTE-SIZE, BYTE-POSITION. Way cool!
>
> I just wish I'd gotten into Lisp 20 years earlier than I did... (*sigh*)
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock, 8L-855 rp...@sgi.com
> Applied Networking http://reality.sgi.com/rpw3/
> Silicon Graphics, Inc. Phone: 650-933-1673
> 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy. FAX: 650-933-0511
> Mountain View, CA 94043 PP-ASEL-IA

Rob,

I remember a Forth-like program I ran on the KIM, sitting at the
teletype in my kid's room working out algorithms to move an NC machine
in arbitrary circular arcs. I remember being annoyed because it seemed
that the major difference from Forth was the renaming of words just to
be different. My recollection that it was called Focal is evidently
faulty. Does anyone know what it might have been? (I had a video RAM on
that KIM, connected to a small TV monitor so I could plot the
trajectories. It was a better machine for my purpose than the mainframe
at work.)

Jerry

Bart Lateur

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Bart Lateur wrote:

>I thought I had read that one of the peculiarities of MUMPS is that the
>was NO operator precedence? That everything was just executed from left
>to right? That, therefore,
>
> SET A=B+C*4.35-D/2.468
>
>would be interpreted as
>
> SET A=(((B+C)*4.35)-D)/2.468
>
>?

Somebody suggested (by e-mail) that I must have been thinking about
another language. Well, I looked it up. Here it is:

M[UMPS] by example: operators
http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/operator.htm

I quote:

M[UMPS] evaluates strictly from left to right, so that 1+1*2
yields 4 and not 3.

Bart.

Elizabeth D Rather

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Michael Coughlin wrote in message <378B405C...@ne.mediaone.net>...
>... Counting versions is not the way to tell the health

>of
>a computer language. Count the number of textbooks on the
>shelves
>of bookstores intead. I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
>alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
>while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
>like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.
>
> When I meet people who tell me they want to learn all
>about computing, including programming, I want to say learn
>Forth. But I know that woun't work since they can't even go
>to the bookstore and buy a book about it. Well at least they
>can still get some nice books about Logo to get then started.


Is Amazon a bookstore? Several Forth books there.

Cheers,
Elizabeth


Michael Schuerig

unread,
Jul 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/13/99
to
Michael Coughlin <m-cou...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

> I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
> alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
> while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
> like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

So, can you recommend any of those "zero" books? I've never used Forth
and I'm not sure I ever will. I'm much more attracted to languages from
the Lisp family -- nonetheless, my curiousity has slowly grown over the
years.

Michael

--
Michael Schuerig
mailto:schu...@acm.org
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/

Rob Warnock

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Bart Lateur <bart....@skynet.be> wrote:
+---------------+---------------

Thanks for the pinter!

+---------------


| M[UMPS] evaluates strictly from left to right, so that 1+1*2
| yields 4 and not 3.

+---------------

Well, what can I say?!? FOCAL *was* inspired directly by MUMPS, yet
it *did* have operator precedence, for arithmetic exprs at least --
I remember coding that part of FOCAL-10 as direct transliteration
of the FOCAL/F code. There was a separate small data stack for
intermediate results. (And a FOCAL-in-C snarfed off the net some
time ago agrees, too.)

Oh, well...


-Rob

Rob Warnock

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Bart Lateur <bart....@skynet.be> wrote:
+---------------
| M[UMPS] by example: operators
| http://www.jacquardsystems.com/Examples/operator.htm
+---------------

Thanks for the pointer!

Michael Coughlin

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Michael Schuerig wrote:

> Michael Coughlin <m-cou...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

> > I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
> > alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
> > while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the
> > big guys like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes
> > out at zero.

> So, can you recommend any of those "zero" books? I've never
> used Forth and I'm not sure I ever will. I'm much more
> attracted to languages from the Lisp family -- nonetheless,
> my curiousity has slowly grown over the years.

There are many sources of knowledge about Forth for an
experienced computer user and net surfer. The problem I'm always
complaining about is the lack of Forth instructional material
for complete computer novices. I think this lack of interest in
providing new beginners material lowers the quality and quantity
of tutorial material for all levels of Forth.

The best book I've ever seen on programming for any
language was written for Forth -- "Starting Forth" by Leo
Brodie. Unfortunately this is out of print and available only
thru special order; its not on the shelf of bookstores like it
was for over ten years. There is one new book on Forth for
experienced programmers available from Amazon.com (not
bookstores) and also Forth Inc (http://www.forth.com). Of the
very roughly 100 versions of Forth available for various
computers and operating systems, 10 or 20 have some
documentation that will show how to use Forth for someone who
already knows how to program. The other systems assume that you
have read a book like "Starting Forth" or have learned another
version of Forth and can reverse engineer uncommented Forth
source code. There are several tutorials and articles on the web
that are very good and the amount of material is slowly growing.
See the FAQ for comp.lang.forth for a list. Actually there are
too many web pages for Forth and it is hard to sort thru all of
them to find the ones that tell you exactly what you want to
know. If you don't find what you need, post a message to
comp.lang.forth stating your favorite operating system, cpu and
applications and someone point you to the right place.

George Neuner

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 00:57:13 GMT, Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com>
wrote:

>[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
> http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
>
>Andrew Cooke <and...@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I get the impression that Lisp is on the way out.
>
>Lisp marketing is tricky and not always done right. High tech
>marketing in general is hard to do. Look at the Macintosh. Not
>exactly a piece of junk. Keeping a company going is harder than
>keeping interest in the company going. Cash flow can be very tricky.
>If you like something, buy its products.
>
>Btw, there are a LOT of users of Lisp who do not buy its products and
>prefer to use freeware; if you ask me, it is that practice which hurts
>the community most of all. People need to either contribute money (or
>public effort, if they insist on using publicware) but they should not
>expect to just "consume" without putting something back and have the
>community survive.
>

That's a wonderful sentiment - but reality dictates another course
because business rarely takes a long term market view. It does indeed
cost a significant amount to develop a decent language development
system and bring it to market, but many companies try to recoup too
quickly and price themselves out of the market.

The reason C/C++, and before that Pascal, took off was because forward
looking companies [I'm thinking of Borland in particular, but others
were also involved] took chances and sold their systems at well below
cost hoping to create their markets. It is true that these systems
were typically stripped down relative to "professional" development
systems available, but they introduced people to the language at
affordable cost and built a base of programmers familiar with both the
language in general and the company's products in particular.

Curious newcomers who lack the ability to set up a shareware/freeware
system may be willing to try a low cost commercial system which is
easy to install and use. Commercial Lisp implementors, for the most
part, either didn't offer low cost intro packages or didn't advertise
that they did. Out of sight, out of mind.


George Neuner
Dynamic Resolutions, Inc.
===================================================
The opinions expressed herein are my own and do not
reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
===================================================

Michael Coughlin

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Elizabeth D Rather wrote:

> Michael Coughlin wrote in message <378B405C...@ne.mediaone.net>...
> >... Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
> >of a computer language. Count the number of textbooks on
> >the shelves of bookstores intead. I conclude that Lisp
> >and Scheme are still alive with about half to one third
> >as many books as Fortran, while Fortran has about one tenth
> >as many books as the big guys like C, Java, Visual Basic
> >and C++. Forth comes out at zero.

> > When I meet people who tell me they want to learn all


> >about computing, including programming, I want to say learn
> >Forth. But I know that woun't work since they can't even go
> >to the bookstore and buy a book about it. Well at least they
> >can still get some nice books about Logo to get then
> >started.

> Is Amazon a bookstore? Several Forth books there.

Amazon is not a bookstore. You can't drop in and
browse. If you don't know what Forth is, or think that Forth
isn't used anymore, you woun't notice a book about it by
accident when you're looking for some other topic on
programming. You can't just buy a book because you have it
in your hot little hand and it looks interesting. You can't
wrap it up and take it right home. People who don't even have an
account to access amazon.com and the web are the easiest to
influence to at least take a look at Forth. They have not
learned the bad habits of other programming languages and can
immediately appreciate the advantages of Forth.

I just looked for Forth books on amazon.com. Yes there
are several listings. There is only one listed as being in
print, and they say expect delivery within 4 to 6 weeks. There
are also listings for books by Leo Brodie. When I clicked on
"Thinking Forth" I got nothing but a system error. There are
five separate listings for Leo Brodie's book -- "Starting
Forth". That's reasonable since it is at least five times better
than the average book on programming. But its out of print. Its
available only by a special search. It will take them weeks to
find it or tell you if its not available. They don't tell you to
get it faster from the Forth Interest Group in California,
http://www.fig.org/ (at least until their special printing runs
out). Relying on amazon.com to sell Forth textbooks is not a
good thing. It would be better to have a publisher promoting the
book and getting it into bookstores.

Elizabeth Rather is much too shy and modest. She failed to
mention her own book the "Forth Programmers' Handbook". So I'll
tell everyone that it is the one Forth textbook that is in print
and for sale at amazon.com. When I go to my local technical
bookstores to see if it has finally arrived on the shelves (it
hasn't), I find instead books on the equally neglected computer
languages Lisp, Scheme and Logo. I think that Lisp and its
relatives are much more lively than Forth since they still have
recently revised textbooks for sale. Since Forth is still being
used, I can deduce that Lisp is still being used, even tho I
don't know where. But how long will Forth last without at least
a few easily found textbooks?
I wish old Forth programmers would become inspired by Lisp
programmers to write textbooks so they would be able to train
their replacements.

--
Michael Coughlin m-cou...@ne.mediaone.com Cambridge, MA USA

Kent M Pitman

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
gne...@dyn.com (George Neuner) writes:

> Curious newcomers who lack the ability to set up a shareware/freeware
> system may be willing to try a low cost commercial system which is
> easy to install and use. Commercial Lisp implementors, for the most
> part, either didn't offer low cost intro packages or didn't advertise
> that they did. Out of sight, out of mind.

This is fine, but said people should not lament the passing of things
they are not willing to invest in. This newsgroup has a number of people
who my sense is both want a lot of free things and want to debug why
Lisp is in the trouble it's in. I think as much as anyone that the language
should be competitively priced and free things should be available. But
I also don't think there's any mystery that there are financial problems
that result from this.

In some ways, computer science got along better when things cost more.
It could afford to take a long-term point of view and invest. People
keep trying to ascribe the success or failure of companies to the
technology, but it's just plain hard managing the day-to-day cash
flow, because if you blink--or worse, if you take a moment to look at
the long term instead of the short term--you can lose out utterly now.
That's sad. Yes, the companies need to do their part, if they care to
stay in business, to keep prices low. The users need to do their
part, if they care to still have vendors, to sometimes buy from
them. It's not like you can just opt out of the paying part and still
reserve the right to care what happens.

> The reason C/C++, and before that Pascal, took off was because forward
> looking companies [I'm thinking of Borland in particular, but others
> were also involved] took chances and sold their systems at well below
> cost hoping to create their markets. It is true that these systems
> were typically stripped down relative to "professional" development
> systems available, but they introduced people to the language at
> affordable cost and built a base of programmers familiar with both the
> language in general and the company's products in particular.

I advocate this as much as anyone. But the fact is that there are a
LOT of free offerings of Lisp and of good quality. Each commercial
vendor pretty much has one. So this is NOT what we need more of.
Lisp itself is extraordinarily affordable already. To the point where
I think a lot of people who would be willing to buy it don't. Free software
can work both ways and should not be seen as a panacea.

Jerry Avins

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Michael Schuerig wrote:
>
> Michael Coughlin <m-cou...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> > I conclude that Lisp and Scheme are still
> > alive with about half to one third as many books as Fortran,
> > while Fortran has about one tenth as many books as the big guys
> > like C, Java, Visual Basic and C++. Forth comes out at zero.
>
> So, can you recommend any of those "zero" books? I've never used Forth
> and I'm not sure I ever will. I'm much more attracted to languages from
> the Lisp family -- nonetheless, my curiousity has slowly grown over the
> years.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Schuerig
> mailto:schu...@acm.org
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/

Look at http://erwin.phys.virginia.edu/classes/551/primer.txt That
should get you started.

Jerry Avins

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
Michael Coughlin wrote:
>
> Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>
> > Michael Coughlin wrote in message <378B405C...@ne.mediaone.net>...
> > >... Counting versions is not the way to tell the health
> > >of a computer language.
...

>
> > Is Amazon a bookstore? Several Forth books there.
>
> Amazon is not a bookstore. You can't drop in and
> browse.
...

> I just looked for Forth books on amazon.com. Yes there
> are several listings. There is only one listed as being in
> print, and they say expect delivery within 4 to 6 weeks.

Amazon always says "4 to 6 weeks", even if they know that the shipment
will arrive tomorrow. Does it take them that long to reprogram their
computer?

...

> --
> Michael Coughlin m-cou...@ne.mediaone.com Cambridge, MA USA

Jerry

Mark K. Gardner

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:31, Michael Coughlin <m-cou...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
> [...]

>get it faster from the Forth Interest Group in California,
>http://www.fig.org/ (at least until their special printing runs
> [...]

The URL should be <http://www.forth.org/> rather than the above.

Mark

--
Mark K. Gardner (mkga...@cs.uiuc.edu)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Real-Time Systems Laboratory
--

Kenneth P. Turvey

unread,
Jul 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/14/99
to
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:35:09 GMT, Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>I advocate this as much as anyone. But the fact is that there are a
>LOT of free offerings of Lisp and of good quality. Each commercial
>vendor pretty much has one. So this is NOT what we need more of.
>Lisp itself is extraordinarily affordable already. To the point where
>I think a lot of people who would be willing to buy it don't. Free software
>can work both ways and should not be seen as a panacea.

I called Franz a while back to find out about how much it would cost me
to get a Lisp system for use on my Linux box as a learning tool (I am
in grad school). I wanted to be able to use CLIM. The cost was
somewhere upwards of $1500.00. Because of this price tag I will not be
in the position to recommend CLIM to some future employer. I will not be
in a position to know its strengths or weaknesses. The Lisp community
may have just cost themselves quite a bit of money; there is no way to
tell.

Without free or low priced complete lisp systems (a system without a GUI
is not a system in todays market) available, the market will not grow.

--
Kenneth P. Turvey <ktu...@SprocketShop.com>
----------------- http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey

Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore,
depends on unreasonable people. -- George Bernard Shaw

Erik Naggum

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
* Andrew Cooke <and...@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk>

| I get the impression that Lisp is on the way out.

something important happens when a previously privileged position in
society suddenly sees incredibly demand that needs to be filled, using
enormous quantities of manpower. that happened to programming computers
about a decade ago, or maybe two. first, the people will no longer be
super dedicated people, and they won't be as skilled or even as smart --
what was once dedication is replaced by greed and sometimes sheer need as
the motivation to enter the field. second, an unskilled labor force will
want job security more than intellectual challenges (to some the very
antithesis of job security). third, managing an unskilled labor force
means easy access to people who are skilled in whatever is needed right
now, not an investment in people -- which leads to the conclusion that a
programmer is only as valuable as his ability to get another job fast.
fourth, when mass markets develop, pluralism suffers the most -- there is
no longer a concept of healthy participants: people become concerned with
the individual "winner", and instead of people being good at whatever
they are doing and proud of that, they will want to flock around the
winner to share some of the glory.

Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use. people
do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance of beating
another unskilled fool in the job race. fact is: you don't get a job by
lying about your Lisp skills. all of this means that there is very
little activity at the front gate, where all the journalists and the
media are. there are no people struggling like mad to get into the Lisp
world. they don't have to. if you want to learn Lisp, you go learn Lisp
and talk to nice people who probably have time for you, and you make
yourself good at it. then you go do complex stuff that insecure losers
who lie about their Java skills can't even imagine, and therefore do not
consider part of the competition.

neurosurgery is another field that requires an actual investment and lots
of dedication to get into, is really rewarding to those who get good at
it, but whose jobs are not advertised in regular newspapers. there is a
shortage of neurosurgeons, but very little advertising in the media that
the patients read. programming is both similar and different. whether
you are a user or a programmer these days is often hard to tell (this has
good qualities to it, too), but some programming tasks are still reserved
to highly skilled people who are not afraid to take huge risks. ignoring
for a moment the power of the American Medical Association, we still
wouldn't see a huge amount of books on neurosurgery for dummies in 21
days or whatever. it's just plain inappropriate, and it's intentionally
out of people's reach. Lisp is somewhat like that. people can get lots
of medicines at the drugstore, but they can't be trusted to carve out a
malignant tumor in their child's brain. all sorts of users can do lots
of customization and cool stuff in their "apps", but they really can't be
trusted to run actual flight control systems, configure the telephone
network, write software for video-synchronized magnetic-resonance imaging
for brain surgery, or write automated stock-trading systems. at some
point, the risk of letting unskilled people do the task becomes too
high. that's when you can't trust more than 1% of the programmers out
there, and a surprisingly large number of them know and use Lisp and
tools that are can be trusted. (consider an ATM that gets one of those
frequent Windows crashes, or a naval warfare vessel that has to cold-boot
because a certain display suddenly goes all blue, or any other story in
comp.risks that would have been hilarious if it had been a joke.)

another way to look at this is to see that software in today's society
has a number of diseased elements, to consider that maggots eat only
diseased or dead tissue, that dead or dying software projects lie around
all over the place, like a horrible war zone between ignorant users and
frightened managers, and pretend that you're a maggot. you wouldn't care
about the living and the healthy who prosper outside the war zone, you'd
rush to the war zone to join the feeding frenzy, right? so, to complete
the grim picture, software in our society is diseased, the activity you
read about are all about cleaning up the disasters and surviving the
equivalent of plagues, and it just takes a tremendous amount of people
and work to keep the whole system from dying, like the incredibly stupid
year-2000 problem.

to take but one simple example: suppose you thought of the new millennium
when you wrote your application back in 1972 -- not only wouldn't you be
invited to the party, those who knew you had done it right from the start
and who probably laughed at you at the time would positively hate you
now, and they sure as hell wouldn't tell people about you. and the more
stupid they are, the more important it would be to pretend that nobody
was smart enough to see the next millennium coming.

Lisp is a little too much out of the reach of the masses, and this needs
fixing, but the professional markets are not into language-of-the-week
contests and feeping creaturism in whatever won last week. when your
application takes longer to create than three versions of the JDK, you
don't use Java. the same applies to other long-term stuff. when you
write manuals for naval or air force vessels, you don't use MS Word and
hope Microsoft doesn't come out with yet another incompatible disservice
pack and/or upgrade, you use CALS and enterprise-wide publishing systems.

put yet another way, even though aviation has become a commodity and ever
more people fly around the country for the fun of it (well, maybe not,
but it's certainly not for the food), you don't see people complaining
that business class is in the decline. instead, you notice that there is
fierce competition in the cheaper tickets, but routes are set up mainly
to accomodate business travelers, and if you're willing to pay for it,
all sorts of amenities are available and life in the air is a lot better.

Lisp is not only object-oriented, it's the business class programming
language. (it really is the first-class programming language, but let's
talk about that when you have enough mileage.)

now, since you're worried about Lisp "dying", consider this: Lisp is used
a lot of places where all else has failed. some people are smart enough
(or have been burned enough) to use Lisp from the start, but just as you
can't expect people to pay for insurance until they have a reasonable
idea about the risks that exist around them, most people have to get
burned before they understand the value of investing in not failing.

#:Erik
--
@1999-07-22T00:37:33Z -- pi billion seconds since the turn of the century

Andreas Kochenburger

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 17:10:15 GMT, cbbr...@news.brownes.org
(Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
>On 11 Jul 1999 10:11:19 GMT, Rob Warnock <rp...@rigden.engr.sgi.com> posted:
>>Andi Kleen <ak...@muc.de> wrote:
>>Really??? There are dozens & dozens of Schemes[*] that *I* know of...
>>How many Forths are there? Even a dozen?
>I count 28 distinct implementations at
><http://www.forth.org/compilers.html>, and that list is decidedly not
>comprehensive.
>--
>Lisp Users:
>Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
>cbbr...@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>

Is there a "Forth in LISP" or a "LISP in FORTH"? I know only of a
Forth native code compiler written in PROLOG (recursion is natural in
PROLOG so the backtracking lends itself to compiling primitives first
and succeeding hilevel words).
Andreas


Andrew Cooke

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to

Hi,

I've read all the responses so far, and I'm pretty convinced that Lisp
isn't that poorly (thank-you!). On the other hand, a couple of posts
seem to reflect a certain ghetto mentality, especially this last one:

Lisp is not the kind of language that insecure losers would use.
people do not want to learn Lisp because they stand a better chance
of
beating another unskilled fool in the job race. fact is: you don't
get a job by lying about your Lisp skills. all of this means that
there is very little activity at the front gate, where all the
journalists and the media are. there are no people struggling like
mad to get into the Lisp world. they don't have to. if you want to
learn Lisp, you go learn Lisp and talk to nice people who probably
have time for you, and you make yourself good at it. then you go do
complex stuff that insecure losers who lie about their Java skills
can't even imagine, and therefore do not consider part of the
competition.

I've been in both academia and industry (academia wasn't computer
science, but I don't think that's important here) and I can see where
this is coming from - it was a big surprise to get into "the real
world" and find people who were scared of learning more. But I don't
think this is a language issue. I've met some very good programmers
who work in C (and a few who work in Java) and they aren't good
despite using C, or because they are using C rather than Lisp - they
are simply good, and would be good whatever language they were using
(OK, a certain amount of experience is required, but the dominant
factor is an inate ability to "program").

Over the last few evenings I've been writing a small program in Python
that pushes the functional aspects of that language about as far as it
will go. I'm doing it like that because it seems the most elegant
way, but I know I could get the same results using it's more OO
aspects. And I could also translate it into Java (the original
development in Java would have been different because of the lack of
dynamic typing - I would have had to think through more of the ideas
before starting). I don't feel I am a "better" programmer when I use
one language rather than another, I'm simply using a different tool (I
feel I am a better programmer because I have learnt from learning and
using different languages, but that is not the same thing....).

There is a difference between Lisp and Java, say, which the example
above illustrates. Static typing can certainly change the development
process, and this can lead to hierarchical "code shops" where
creativity and coding are separated. But it doesn't have to, and
there are other advantages to a more formal design approach,
especially if you are in a commercial situation where it is better to
clarify exactly what the customer wants before implementation.

I can see how a language like Java allows less skilled people to
*produce* code, but *designing* code in any language requires a
similar level of ability. Different languages provide different
pathways to a solution, and have different costs and advantages in
development / analysis / specification / modification / maintenance.
This does not imply that a Java programmer is necessarily worse than a
Lisp programmer.

So, finally, my summary is: if Java attracts less skilled programmers
that is more because it is popular (maybe because it is more suited to
a code-shop approach) than because Lisp is necessarily "better".

A popular tool is not necessarily a bad tool. On the other hand, a
good tool, even if it requires skill to use, is often a popular tool -
possibly mis-used and abused.

Of course, Lisp may well be a good but (comparatively) rare tool - I
hope so.

Andrew (Which may be what the original post meant anyway...)

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Marcel Hendrix

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
Andreas Kochenburger wrote in message <378d8c6d...@news.kwu.erl.siemens.de>...
[..]

>Is there a "Forth in LISP" or a "LISP in FORTH"?
[..]

LISP in Forth exists. Well, it doesn't try to emulate LISP but it adds
a LISP-like vocabulary to Forth, mainly list building words with garbage collection. The original
F-PC code for it is on Taygeta, it even has some documentation.

The GC stinks, I never got it to reliably work in a 32-bit flat model
Forth (iForth) after I converted it from its segment-based origin.

I've added some Prolog code to it published in JFAR (Feuerbacher?). The
demo is a rule-based AI program to determine animals :-)

-marcel


Ian Wild

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to


You seem to have read a meaning into that paragraph
that was the exzact opposite of what I saw.

My interpretation:
Insecure losers may lie about their skills in order to get a job.
However, lying about your Lisp expertise is of little benefit in
today's job market.

To contradict this you'd have to produce an example
of an insecure loser who had successfully lied h(er|is)
way into a Lisp job. Instead you present non-losers
in non-Lisp jobs.

Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
ktu...@pug1.sprocketshop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) writes:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:35:09 GMT, Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >I advocate this as much as anyone. But the fact is that there are a
> >LOT of free offerings of Lisp and of good quality. Each commercial
> >vendor pretty much has one. So this is NOT what we need more of.
> >Lisp itself is extraordinarily affordable already. To the point where
> >I think a lot of people who would be willing to buy it don't. Free software
> >can work both ways and should not be seen as a panacea.
>
> I called Franz a while back to find out about how much it would cost me
> to get a Lisp system for use on my Linux box as a learning tool (I am
> in grad school). I wanted to be able to use CLIM. The cost was
> somewhere upwards of $1500.00. Because of this price tag I will not be
> in the position to recommend CLIM to some future employer.

$1500 can be a lot or a triffling sum depending on circumstance.

for you at this time, it's expensive. $1500 would be some 15% of my
gross income back when i was a graduate student at georgia tech. i
understand you need to eat.

however, $1500 is not a lot of money for business purposes[1].
test equipment such as spectrum analysers cost many thousands.
consider good asic chip design tools; these can cost $150k for a
license. if lisp is useful to you, $1500 is a bargain. the people at
franz also need to eat.

the problem is that without prior lisp experience, you will be hard
pressed to recommend it to your employer.

> I will not be in a position to know its strengths or weaknesses.
> The Lisp community may have just cost themselves quite a bit of
> money; there is no way to tell.

life isn't fair. i think franz is very generous with their trial
edition.

> Without free or low priced complete lisp systems (a system without a GUI
> is not a system in todays market) available, the market will not
> grow.

you can use the linux trial edition. you can use clisp or cmucl.
so there are systems you can use. i agree that gui construction ought
to be a natural for lisp and that the trial editions do not make it as
readily available as, e.g., visual basic[2]. there seems to be a
little bit of work[3] with gui toolkits and cmucl going on. perhaps
joining that effort would help you get started at a price you can
afford.

[1] businesses can deduct expenses from their taxes.

[2] visual basic while a weak programming language gives access to
many gui building functions.

[3] e.g., making a free clim, calling gtk through a ffi.

--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!

Rainer Joswig

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
In article <m2d7xuk...@sophia.axel.nom>, Johan Kullstam <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

> > I called Franz a while back to find out about how much it would cost me
> > to get a Lisp system for use on my Linux box as a learning tool (I am
> > in grad school). I wanted to be able to use CLIM. The cost was
> > somewhere upwards of $1500.00.

The Professional Edition of LispWorks 4.1 for the Windows platform
is priced at $799. LispWorks for Linux is currently in beta.
I guess it will priced similarly.

Yes, it includes CLIM 2.

Yes, you can deliver applications royalty free.

Yes, it has an IDE.


http://www.harlequin.com/products/ads/lisp/
http://services.harlequin.com/lisp/lwl.nsf/RegistrationPersonal?OpenForm

Mark Carroll

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
In article <378CD1...@ieee.org>, Jerry Avins <jya...@erols.com> wrote:
(snip)

>Amazon always says "4 to 6 weeks", even if they know that the shipment
>will arrive tomorrow. Does it take them that long to reprogram their
>computer?
(snip)

Nonsense - that's been by far the minority of books I've ordered from
them - for instance, the first language book that I could think of,
"C: A Reference Manual", is claimed to ship in two to three days.

Certainly, number of in-print books and their expected delivery time
is not a bad way of getting a first estimate for the 'health' of a
language! Counting the number of currently-supported compilers you
could use to produce marketable software isn't a bad one either.

[ followups trimmed ]

-- Mark

Kucera, Rich

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99
to
> From: Erik Naggum [mailto:er...@naggum.no]

> * Andrew Cooke <and...@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk>
> | I get the impression that Lisp is on the way out.
>
> for a moment the power of the American Medical Association, we still
> wouldn't see a huge amount of books on neurosurgery for
> dummies in 21 days or whatever. it's just plain inappropriate, and
it's
> intentionally out of people's reach. Lisp is somewhat like that.

Yeah, had the opportunity to work with a couple Lisp experts a decade
ago, those guys were brilliant and remote. I was and am a
"mass-educated"
type, and failed to see the opportunity to pick their brains for all
it was worth, and though I was good at Lisping and got Flavors, was
consumed by the Unix/C market after the project ended. Can't complain,
was lucky for a while.


Fernando Mato Mira

unread,
Jul 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/15/99