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!pipex!dircon!rheged!simon
From: simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke)
Subject: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <LGM.94Dec5075553@polaris.ih.att.com> <D0CLt9.6K3@research.att.com> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 21:32:48 GMT
Lines: 40
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:103742 comp.lang.lisp:16083

In article <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world>,
Richard Billington <buff@pravda.world> wrote:
>Dick Gabriel said that Lucid's experience with developing their
>"C" tools (Energize), their experience indicated at least a 3 fold
>difference between using C and Lisp as development languages - the
>increased being in lisp's favour (i.e., productivity was 3 to 1 improved
>if one used lisp). I agree with LGM, this proves nothing, but is simply
>some heresay which is contrary to Mr. Trickey's heresay.

Well, cf Erik Naggum's response to the above, Dick Gabriel in
particular and the Lucid team in general must be taken as LisP
experts, so that may to some extent weight against their experience as
reported above. Nevertheless, if this statement is something Dick has
published and provided some quantifiable support for, it would be
extremely useful material. There is so *damn* *little* serious study
of the comparative productivity of differing programming tools.

No, I'm not expecting any study which "conclusively proves" that any
particular language is "the best" for any but very special purposes
(and indeed I'd take with a large pinch of salt any study which
claimed to); but it's useful to hear from people who have a wide range
of expertise in more than one language. 

My own view, for what it's worth, is that LisP is probably more like
eight or ten times as productive as C, in terms of delivered user
level functionality per programmer hour (I don't know enough C++ to
comment). However I'm biased towards LisP; although I used BCPL before
LisP, LisP is far and away my preferred language. My experience runs
to about 80KLOC in C, probably five times that in various LisPs (but
mainly Interlisp/LOOPS).





-- 
--------simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk

	Currently the 90th most egotistical person in uk.politics

