At 22:23 +0200 8/25/02, Dirk Riehle wrote:
>Choosing CLOS or the like:
>
>- you don't get enough people
>- those people you get cost too much
>- you are incompatible with the rest of the world
>- adapters and bug-fixes will always be last for you
Though it's not relevant, I would argue like this:
My team will be able to program circles around everyone else. They
will be able to construct rapidly a language specific to the problem
we are solving rather than using a language designed by computer
scientists worrying about their place in history and a herd of
library writers working in cubicles a thousand miles from our
business. My team will be able to use a language without training
wheels. Strong typing is for weak minds, and it's exactly like they
say at MIT: Our current popular languages are designed to help losers
lose less.
I will be able to point to various examples where Lisp programmers
have written not only 3-5 times faster, but they wrote things other
programmers thought were impossible. In this regard, I'd tell the
CEO, our competitors will be spending all their time trying to figure
out that it's really possible we're doing what we're doing, because
they will be thinking in terms of customization at compile time or
link time, not at runtime.
Moreover, we will be operating where the CEO is focusing on his or
her specialty and not imposing his or her knuckleheaded view on
technology.
Because Lisp is dead, I'll get better programmers for less money.
I'll be able to guarantee 50 more IQ points for the same pay. And my
guys will be able to spend their time typing in value not book
keeping overhead and typing in type descriptions because their guys
are too stupid to know when they type + numbers are involved.
Because no one uses Lisp, I'll have my pick of thousands of great,
experienced programmers looking to work for someone with a non-zero
IQ, not the ones fresh out of college with 10 programs under their
belts.
I'll be compatible with everything because it is right now. And if
someone throws me a bug, I can code around it in a few minutes. Being
a niche market means we're more proprietary. People will not use Lisp
to compete with us because they are lamebrains listening to the
latest fashion statement from Sun or Microsoft.The open source crowd
isn't even smart enough to notice C++, so they are especially nowhere
in the picture.
Of course, no CEO will belive this because every one of them is stupid.
Hi everybody, In February we had a short discussion on Lisp on the pattern discussion mailing list, especially the entry barriers of Lisp because of allegedly ...
Nice job. What you have written is useful to me. Here at Space Telescope we are thrashing somewhat over the question should we continue to use lisp in the...
jmadams@...
Aug 21, 2002 2:54 pm
Hi all, I'm a fan of all the List/CLOS papers I've read, but never became a friend of Lisp as an everyday tool. (That is, I never used it outside school.) If...
... Dirk: Use large ROI Case Studies of companies that made killer apps using Lisp to present a _business case_: ITA/Orbitz: http://www.itasoftware.com/ ...
... I would begin by asking if the CEO's goals were really consistent with the Feyerabend project. -- Ward Cunningham v 503-245-5633 mailto:ward@... f...
Ward Cunningham
ward@...
Aug 21, 2002 5:07 pm
Hehe, thanks Ward. I had no intent of starting a flame war. I restricted this email to the feyerabend emailing list (rather than replying to...
... It depends on what kind of product the company makes. If the source code is actually part of the company's business strategy (e.g. if the exit strategy is...
Thanks for the answers so far: - I don't think showing some success stories help. For every Lisp success story there are, unfortunately, substantially more...
... Though it's not relevant, I would argue like this: My team will be able to program circles around everyone else. They will be able to construct rapidly a...
Since we are discussing an age-old problem that the Lisp/CLOS companies had already 10-15 years ago, I wonder whether hasn't been proof of CLOS (programmers')...
... http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/lisp-java.pdf (See also http://www.flownet.com/gat/papers/ljfaq.html) All this interest in Lisp motivated me to finish a...
I promised myself not to let myself be dragged into this kind of discussion but ... Theo D'Hondt Programming Technology Lab : Computer Science Department ...
Theo D'Hondt
tjdhondt@...
Aug 30, 2002 6:02 pm
but here goes: Common Lisp isn't Lisp and (certainly) neither is CLOS. Lisp might be a thing of beauty but ... I remember being disgusted by the ADA reference ...
Theo D'Hondt
tjdhondt@...
Aug 30, 2002 6:19 pm
Hi, You're welcome. ;) Please let me know how this worked out... All the best, Pascal ... -- Pascal Costanza University of Bonn ...
... What about giving a cool demo? This is how I managed at several stages in the past to convince people to use a certain technology. (no Lisp yet, though) An...
... I don't know, it depends on how you sell it. I have found Paul Graham's story about Yahoo stores quite impressive, especially the bit about changing code...
... Well, I think this is mostly our own fault (i.e., the fault of computer scientists). The term "programming language" raises certain associations in...
Thanks Pascal, You have inspired me. Next time I start something significant I am going to use Common Lisp. I have never gotten to take Common Lisp for a...
...and to folow on I'd argue that the current "post-9/11 downturn" is the time when Lisp and Smalltalk will come to be dominant players in "the enterprise"....
eliot@...
Aug 28, 2002 1:40 am
Trying to stay very much on topic (and trimming my replies too, folks!)... Even if Microsoft is allowed to fail, there will be work to do on the Feyerabend...
... Here is a quote from an interview with James Gosling (see http://java.sun.com/features/2002/03/gosling.html) ... I think that this is just a pattern that...