Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!NewsWatcher!user
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <hbaker-1401951022360001@192.0.2.1>
Sender: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)
Organization: nil
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <LGM.94Dec5075553@polaris.ih.att.com> <D0CLt9.6K3@research.att.com> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world> <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com> <KARL.95Jan13010415@bagpuss.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 18:19:26 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:107475 comp.lang.lisp:16372

In article <KARL.95Jan13010415@bagpuss.demon.co.uk>,
karl@bagpuss.demon.co.uk (Karl Strickland) wrote:

> In article <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com> vrotney@netcom.com (William
Paul Vrotney) writes:
> >  This leads me to believe that for a complex enough application, like a Go
> >  program, it is better to develop it in Lisp then recode in C++ in the last
> >  two weeks before delivery.

I know a large govt-funded project that used Lisp.  It worked fine, and
they were able to use the application to do very sophisticated things.
Then someone got the bright idea to recode it in C++.  After 3 years, and
mucho $$$, the project was declared a 'success', and quietly dropped, even
though it never worked, and its mean time between crashes was miniscule.
Only 10% of the functionality was ever ported.

In retrospect, they could have saved all their money and sat on their
hands for 3 years; the newer generations of workstations execute Lisp
even faster and cheaper.

The hubris of some people never ceases to amaze me....
