Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!ait!jacob
From: jacob@ait.trl.oz (Jacob Cybulski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Software Productivity Using Lisp
Message-ID: <747@trlluna.trl.oz>
Date: 5 Oct 89 22:54:58 GMT
References: <1257@kar.cam.nist.gov>
Sender: root@trlluna.trl.oz
Lines: 40

In article <11297@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>, summers@gort.cs.buffalo.edu (Michael Summers) writes:
> 
> Does anyone have any data on lisp programmer productivity
> ...
> this. My guess is that this is due to,
> 
>    1) The number of  useful high level functions ..
> 
>    2) The time saved debugging the code through the use of
> the symbolics debugger and interactive environment.
> 

Again, rather than qualitative data, I have only got gut feelings for you.

To me LISP provides a nice, consistent, clean conceptual environment.  It is
not the number of useful high level functions that make LISP attractive, I
even prefer Scheme of which early versions were not as rich in functions as
CommonLISP; it is not interactive debuggers, editors, tracers, steppers, and
the like which make LISP a superb language. It is a neat syntax and overall
conceptual integrity which makes LISP a great productivity tool. Programming
in LISP is comparable to THINKING. I find PROLOG in the same class of
cognitive tools as LISP, although I feel more efficient with LISP.

Jacob L. Cybulski

Mail:	Artificial Intelligence Systems
	Telecom Research Laboratories
	770 Blackburn Road
	Clayton Victoria 3168
	Australia

Phone:	+613 541 6273
Fax:	+613 543 8863
ACSNet:	jacob@trlamct.trl.oz
ARPA:	jacob%trlamct.trl.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
UUCP:	...!uunet!murtoa.cs.mu.oz!trlamct.trl.oz!jacob
o | o	Jacob L. Cybulski
 \_/
	Artificial Intelligence Systems
	Telecom Research Laboratories