Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!xylogics!world!paradigm!gjc
From: gjc@paradigm.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: why lisp is dead
Message-ID: <509@paradigm.com>
Date: 11 Apr 90 19:32:30 GMT
References: <485@paradigm.com> <12789@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Paradigm Associates Inc, Cambridge MA
Lines: 36

In article <12789@dime.cs.umass.edu>, Kelly@Vega writes:
> 
> Common Lisp is more of an Operating System than just a programming
> language. 

False. A CL does *not* have to implement:
 - FILESYSTEM    - EDITORS 
 - NETWORKING    - DEVICE DRIVERS for DISK/TAPE/NETWORK ...
 - SCHEDULING    - WINDOW SYSTEM
 - PROTECTION    - INTERLOCKING  - INTERPROCESS COMMUNICATION

There is a heck of a lot in an O/S such as VMS or UNIX.

For that matter, there is a heck of a lot in something like
the Symbolics release 6.x O/S, or the LMI-LAMBDA release 3.x
Most all of the stuff of conventional O/S.

So why is it that some CL implementations under say Unix, are
now bigger than an entire lispmachine O/S image???

> You certainly don't pay Lisp license fees for
> applications delivered for a Symbolics or an Explorer.  

False. You pay one HELL of a lot, since you need to buy a hardware board
and pay for additional software licenses when you want to support
a Lisp application on your MAC or SUN in that manner. The user must
also pay additional monthly hardware support fees.

> Common Lisp is quite healthy.  In my opinion, the growth of UNIX, C and C++
> is cancerous.

C is FORTRAN-DONE-RIGHT, so who could argue with that?
And C++ perhaps is just filling the space that could have been taken up
by reasonable lisp implementations.

-gjc