Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!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: <15057@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 Apr 90 13:34:23 GMT
References: <509@paradigm.com>
Reply-To: lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 46

In article <509@paradigm.com> gjc@paradigm.com writes:
>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

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Common Lisp attempts to
provide a portable interface to a software development
environment.  Common Lisp includes BREAK, INSPECT, TRACE, STEP,
COMPILE, LOAD, EVAL, ED, PPRINT, and a host of other
environment-related forms.

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

Large Common Lisp images typically include a more or less complete
software development environment, plus a number of
operating-system-like capabilities such as preemptive
multiple-process scheduling.

>> 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.

The point is that any calculation of "overhead" depends on the
assumptions one is willing to make about typical customers.  If
targeted customers usually already have a Lisp machine and a
Lisp-based operating system, these are no longer "chargeable" to
the application.  Even on a computer running the UNIX System, if
customers typically already have a Common Lisp implementation and
the application is packaged on that assumption (e.g., as a
loadable binary), the Lisp is no longer "application overhead."


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

Standard disclaimer.