Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vrotney
From: vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
In-Reply-To: hbaker@netcom.com's message of Sat, 14 Jan 1995 18:19:26 GMT
Message-ID: <vrotneyD2HwK6.HEB@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
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> <hbaker-1401951022360001@192.0.2.1>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 11:14:30 GMT
Lines: 40
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:107664 comp.lang.lisp:16381

In article <hbaker-1401951022360001@192.0.2.1> hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) writes:

>   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....

I'm not sure who you are accusing of being hubristic here.  I hope it is not
me since I am not at all proud of having to write these complex applications
in C++, I would rather stick with Lisp all the way.  I was merely suggesting
that IF YOU HAD TO CODE IN C++ then perhaps (depending on the application)
you might be better off developing it in Lisp and then recoding in C++.
Some of us do not have a choice these days.

Also you may have missed what I said later.  I joked about my exaggeration
here just to make the point.  And I also mentioned using a good Lispy C++
library to aid with the port.  Did the project you cite have a good Lispy
C++ library?  If they did please tell me because I want to know about it.
If they did not it could have made all the difference in the world.


-- 
William P. Vrotney - vrotney@netcom.com
