Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.lisp.mcl,comp.lang.lisp.franz,comp.lang.lisp.x,comp.lang.clos
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntpa!ssbunews!iexist!not-for-mail
From: clarisse@iexist.flw.att.com
Subject: Re: Lisp considered unfinished
Message-ID: <D9rr51.MwM@ssbunews.ih.att.com>
Originator: clarisse@tenet
Sender: clarisse@iexist (55437-olivier clarisse(haim)463)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tenet.flw.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <hbaker-0206950511260001@192.0.2.1> <neves-0206950926120001@neves.ils.nwu.edu> <3qnek3$mk@Yost.com> <ddyerD9pqo2.GKx@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:48:37 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:18013 comp.lang.lisp.mcl:7144 comp.lang.lisp.franz:500 comp.lang.lisp.x:1542 comp.lang.clos:3163


I agree with the warnings sent by Dave Dyer and most
comments thereafter. However, I think one number is off:
at least one language costs a lot more money to develop than this...

In article <ddyerD9pqo2.GKx@netcom.com>, ddyer@netcom.com (Dave Dyer) writes:
|> Despite many millions that went into Symbolics, LMI, TI and Xerox
|> (both directly and to their customers) there is not *ONE* really well
|> known "lisp" success story to point to; and on the flip side,
|> everybody knows how much was invested in those companies, and where
|> they are now.
-- 
----------------
Olivier Clarisse	     "Languages are not unlike living organisms
Member of Technical Staff     can they adapt and improve to survive?"
AT&T Bell Laboratories
