Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!sparky!kwiudl.kwi.com!netcomsv!netcomsv!netcom.com!vrotney
From: vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
In-Reply-To: rj@wariat.org's message of 22 Dec 1994 14:47:59 GMT
Message-ID: <vrotneyD18KF6.DxM@netcom.com>
Followup-To: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <BUFF.94Dec15103904@pravda.world> <D0xAIp.3Dn@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <vrotneyD11MDv.Ks7@netcom.com> <vogtD12y8D.HLL@netcom.com> <3d5alh$6j7@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> <vrotneyD13o6z.92L@netcom.com> <D14M3M.4JA@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> <3dc3iv$fsc@wariat.wariat.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:40:18 GMT
Lines: 43
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:104620 comp.lang.lisp:16163

In article <3dc3iv$fsc@wariat.wariat.org> rj@wariat.org (Robert J. Brown) writes:

>   Stan Friesen (swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com) wrote:
>   : In article <vrotneyD13o6z.92L@netcom.com>, vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney) writes:
>   : |> that should obviously be done in C.  Here is my challenge:
>   : |> 
>   : |>  "You are given spectral sound files representing frequency, amplitude,
>   : |>  bandwidth and time of sounds picked up by hydrophones in the ocean.  You are
>   : |>  looking for torpedo sounds but the hydrophones pick up the sounds of the
>   : |>  ship dragging the hydrophones and other miscellaneous noise in the ocean.
>   : |>  Develop an existing standard blackboard system shell and source model and
>   : |>  discover the blackboard level abstractions that allow the top level of the
>
>   In my experience, a neural network classifier would probabvly be a better
>   choice than a blackboard architecture and a set of brittle rules.  Acoustic
>   signature recognition is one of the early classic successes of ANNs.
>

Perhaps.  But in the project cited training a NN would not be feasible.
Please, lets not start a NN debate!

Besides the point here was to offer a program requirements that would
illustrate the productivity ratio between Lisp and C++ better than a simple
BITBLTer.  

Actually I would love to see a example that is more complex than the
BITBLTer but far less harder than my torpedo "research project".  One thing
that I came up with is something that required lots of interactive testing
and evolution of pieces of a relatively simple but unknown algorithm.  The
C++ challenger then would then be faced with having to recompile and run
over and over again increasing the ratio.  The problem here of course is
that if the problem is unsolved the solution time is unknown and if the
problem is solved the C++ challenger would use the solved algorithm.

Again, it seems like finding a way to prove the productivity ratio is elusive.
However the C++ advocates should start to suspect that if several people
independently report there is in fact a productivity ratio in favor of Lisp
then it probably is not a myth.  I have yet to hear anyone report that they
could develop faster in C++ than in Lisp (excepting of course those who are
not Lisp fluent).

-- 
William P. Vrotney - vrotney@netcom.com
