Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!zodiac!jdye From: jdye@zodiac.ADS.COM (John W. Dye Jr.) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: why lisp is dead Message-ID: <11534@zodiac.ADS.COM> Date: 10 Apr 90 22:44:53 GMT References: <485@paradigm.com> <14980@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <6008@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> <7954@arisia.Xerox.COM> Distribution: usa Organization: Advanced Decision Systems Lines: 34 >Gjc's right that this is a vicious circle; unfortunately, what it needs is >some supplier who can afford to break it, perhaps in conjunction with a Lisp >house prepared to lower the financial cost of run-time licenses. (Didn't >Symbolics start to address these sorts of problems with a compatability >system for PC-type machines?) Unfortunately suppliers of Lisp are vicitms of a chicken-and-egg problem. The fact is that Lisp is not a very profitable buisness (Witness Gold Hill's recent chapter 11, Symbolics general status and Lucid and Franz's failure to grow as fast as they would like). Actually, I think that the remaining lisp vendors have done a marvelous job of staying solvent given the marketplace factors them. But GJC does have a very valid point. The delivery liscence is a severe limitation to size of the market for Lisp as an computer system delivery vehicle. Other barriers are the size and speed of applications written in lisp (although those factors are being remedied by the Common-Lisp vendors). But, given a choice between two language products which both produce fast, small, robust applications, I will choose based on which product is cheapest to incorporate into my workstation product. The extra 1K cost for the liscence fee will be 1k of profit that I DONT RECIEVE from the application I am selling and supporting. > >-- >Paul Dourish, Rank Xerox EuroPARC, Cambridge UK > > "Ain't they got no barbers where you come from, boy?" JD John Dye jdye@ads.com