Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: why lisp is dead
Message-ID: <14980@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 10 Apr 90 02:48:12 GMT
References: <485@paradigm.com>
Reply-To: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

In article <485@paradigm.com> gjc@paradigm.com writes:
>So when I go to write an expert system at a startup-company
>do I decide to use LISP?
>
>NO!
>
>Why? Mainly the unreasonable cost of the RUNTIME portion of a lisp.
>
>three costs:
>(1) technical cost of the overly-complex and large runtime portions.
>(2) financial cost-of-sales for runtime licenses.
>(3) administrative costs of runtime licensing procedures.

Until the world is ready for Lisp machines...

You could develop in (portable) Common Lisp in your favorite
environment but deliver your application in Austin Kyoto Common
Lisp.  My impression is that, with the proper arrangements, the
esteemed professors in Kyoto do not impose (2) and (3).  Even (1)
is not so much of a problem with AKCL as with some other Common
Lisp implementations.

Can you name your hardware platform?  For example, if you're
developing for an IBM-compatible PC with 640 Kbytes of RAM, your
situation is probably beyond hope unless you can make do with
Xlisp.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@ihlpf.att.com

Standard disclaimer.