BIG successes of Lisp (was ...)

[mike420]

In the context of LATEX, some Pythonista asked what the big
successes of Lisp were. I think there were at least three *big*
successes.

a. orbitz.com web site uses Lisp for algorithms, etc.
b. Yahoo store was originally written in Lisp.
c. Emacs

The issues with these will probably come up, so I might as well
mention them myself (which will also make this a more balanced
post)

a. AFAIK Orbitz frequently has to be shut down for maintenance
(read "full garbage collection" - I'm just guessing: with
generational garbage collection, you still have to do full
garbage collection once in a while, and on a system like that
it can take a while)

b. AFAIK, Yahoo Store was eventually rewritten in a non-Lisp.
Why? I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you :)

c. Emacs has a reputation for being slow and bloated. But then
it's not written in Common Lisp.

Are ViaWeb and Orbitz bigger successes than LATEX? Do they
have more users? It depends. Does viewing a PDF file made
with LATEX make you a user of LATEX? Does visiting Yahoo
store make you a user of ViaWeb?

For the sake of being balanced: there were also some *big*
failures, such as Lisp Machines. They failed because
they could not compete with UNIX (SUN, SGI) in a time when
performance, multi-userism and uptime were of prime importance.
(Older LispM's just leaked memory until they were shut down,
newer versions overcame that problem but others remained)

Another big failure that is often _attributed_ to Lisp is AI,
of course. But I don't think one should blame a language
for AI not happening. Marvin Mins ky, for example,
blames Robotics and Neural Networks for that.

[Kenny Tilton]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:

... someone like Tilton
is easily smart enough to avoid sophistry, and yet he engages in it.

what is sophistry?

kenny

--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey

[Espen Vestre]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.c x> writes:

The only languages I've seen with truly vindictive and nasty user
communities are Lisp... and VB.

We are a wicked gang indeed. Actually we were thrown out of the hotel
at the ILC this week because we were harrasing the other guests with
nasty lamda expressions in the elevators!
--
(espen)

[Frode Vatvedt Fjeld]

Kenny Tilton <kt*****@nyc.rr .com> writes:

what is sophistry?

The story goes that in ancient Greece the sophists were recognized
experts on public speaking, who took pride in being able to sway their
audience into any point of view they liked, or got paid for. (Much
like todays "spin doctors", I believe.) This in contrast to the
philosophers, who were the experts on what is True, regardless of
popularity or any pragmatics.

So sophistry usually means something like a lot of fancy talk that
isn't very helpful in establishing what is true, or important, or
right, or bestest of parens and white-space.

--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld

[Adam Warner]

Hi Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters,

Kenny Tilton <kt*****@nyc.rr .com> wrote previously: |People don't like
Lisp because of misconceptions, and threads like that |help dispel
those.

In my own mind, the biggest impediment to really liking Lisp is not the
annoying parentheses and awful syntax... it's many Lispers (especially
those like Tilton).

Sure David. Please don't make this personal as some may be less gracious
in overlooking your failings to even post correctly indented
Python-the-language code when arguing against Lisp and its syntax:
<http://groups.google.c om/groups?selm=mai lman.1065550637 .20363.python-list%40python.o rg>

Can't even insert four spaces without destroying the semantics of your
code three times in a row? I note you didn't later acknowledge the three
flaws, which indicates that you still couldn't see them when reviewing
your code:
<http://groups.google.c om/groups?selm=mai lman.1065555441 .8896.python-list%40python.o rg>

You may have more numerous libraries and a larger set of groupies but you
will never have the satisfaction of using a superior language. Please let
me know if this response makes me a shining example of a "truly vindictive
and nasty" Lisp user. Posters to comp.lang.lisp are extremely likely to
receive polite and extraordinary help. For a long time all newbies to
comp.lang.lisp could expect to be humiliated. That time has passed.

Regards,
Adam

[prunesquallor]

da*******@yahoo .com (dan) writes:

Google ate my long post, so I'll make it simple.

Lisp failed (yes, it did) because of the parentheses. Normal people
can't parse 13 close-parens easily. Functional notation is
non-intuitive and hard to read.
Damn, but I wish we'd noticed that! It would have saved us such
trouble. Who'd have thought that it was something as simple as
parenthesis?

I'm really surprised that McCarthy didn't realize this and invent some
sort of meta-language for lisp that resembled FORTRAN. Why didn't
someone with expertise in the translation of English into logical
expressions, like Vaughn Pratt for example, *do* something about this?

Perhaps we should have used curly braces?
The world is moving in the direction of languages like Python, that
fit naturally with how we speak and write.

That is to say:

world.MovingDir ection = fit(we.speak() and \
we.write, fitfunctions.Na turally))

[Jens Axel Søgaard]

Frode Vatvedt Fjeld wrote:

Kenny Tilton <kt*****@nyc.rr .com> writes:

what is sophistry?

The story goes that in ancient Greece the sophists were recognized
experts on public speaking, who took pride in being able to sway their
audience into any point of view they liked, or got paid for. (Much
like todays "spin doctors", I believe.) This in contrast to the
philosophers, who were the experts on what is True, regardless of
popularity or any pragmatics.

So sophistry usually means something like a lot of fancy talk that
isn't very helpful in establishing what is true, or important, or
right, or bestest of parens and white-space.

And it often involved asking questions, whose answers were already known.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard

[prunesquallor]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.c x> writes:

Kenny Tilton <kt*****@nyc.rr .com> wrote previously:
|People don't like Lisp because of misconceptions, and threads like that
|help dispel those.

In my own mind, the biggest impediment to really liking Lisp is not the
annoying parentheses and awful syntax... it's many Lispers (especially
those like Tilton).

Yeah, that Tilton guy....

Hey, he's not looking. Let's all join comp.lang.pytho n and ditch him.

[prunesquallor]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.c x> writes:

I'm not sure which is worse though... someone like Tilton is easily
smart enough to avoid sophistry, and yet he engages in it.

What can I say? Lisp attracts a more sophistricated kind of programmer.

[Rune Steffensen]

....it could have something to do with its users.

Now, if just someone would take this thread, and put it further up than
the sun will ever reach...

--
-rune
Incognito, ergo sum.

[Kenny Tilton]

Espen Vestre wrote:

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me***@gnosis.c x> writes:

The only languages I've seen with truly vindictive and nasty user
communities are Lisp... and VB.

We are a wicked gang indeed. Actually we were thrown out of the hotel
at the ILC this week because we were harrasing the other guests with
nasty lamda expressions in the elevators!

The Savages of comp.lang.lisp!
--
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey