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!news.sprintlink.net!southwind.net!jupiter.WichitaKS.NCR.COM!ncrhub2!ncr-sd!lcpd2!elsegundoca.ncr.com!swf
From: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com (Stan Friesen)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D14LKq.4CJ@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM (News Administrator)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tools3.elsegundoca.attgis.com
Reply-To: swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit
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>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:14:50 GMT
Lines: 36
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104254 comp.lang.lisp:16116

In article <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com>, vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) writes:
|> 
|> This is close to my experience.  I have mentioned that there feels like a 5
|> to 1 productivity ratio in Lisp to C++ to my colleagues who are more or less
|> experts in both Lisp and C++ and the usual response is that it is too
|> conservative an estimate.  One part of the big ratio is attributed to the
|> lack of a good C++ library.  I created a Lispy C++ library for myself which
|> includes lists, dynamic typing and other nice Lispisms, ...

You did what??

This sounds like you are trying to program C++ as if it were Lisp.

This is certainly NOT going to get the most effective use out of C++.

Effective C++ programming style requires a different approach than
Lisp programming - the best solution of a given problem is often
different in the two languages.

[This is probably even *more* true of Lisp vs. C++ than it is of
Smalltalk vs. C++ - and Smalltalkish C++ code is very kludgy C++].

|> 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.  Or better yet compile efficiently (enough) in
|> Lisp when that becomes more feasible.

Or it is better designed up front.

"exploratory programming" is *one* way to handle complexity.
Formal design is another way to handle complexity.

-- 
swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com		sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.
