Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.bu.edu!olivea!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!vogt
From: vogt@netcom.com (Christopher J. Vogt)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <vogtD12y8D.HLL@netcom.com>
Organization: Kalantha, Inc.
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world> <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 22:53:01 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104065 comp.lang.lisp:16097

In article <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com>,
William Paul Vrotney <vrotney@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke) writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>It seems like computer science is stuck with surveys here.  Is there any
>more scientific approach?

I remember reading a survey years ago when I was at Symbolics, but I
can't find it now.

I think that anything scientific is problematic at best, because you
really need a *big* project, and a large number of people, and how
can that be arranged?

How about somebody sponsoring a programming contest.  A team of people
spend a weekend working on a problem, or a set of problems, free to
select what language and what computer they use.

I used to think that Lisp was 10x C (and I have no experience with C++)
but I now believe there is a range between 2x and 5x.

-- 
Christopher J. Vogt vogt@netcom.com
From: El Eh, CA
