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: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D1Fon5.48A@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Organization: none. Disorganization: total.
References: <19941203T221402Z.enag@naggum.no> <3dc3iv$fsc@wariat.wariat.org> <vrotneyD18KF6.DxM@netcom.com> <3de3ok$7a8@news.u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 19:54:40 GMT
Lines: 30
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:105342 comp.lang.lisp:16211

In article <3de3ok$7a8@news.u.washington.edu>,
Devin Cook <dsc@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>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
>
>Actually, if you ask the question are there things you can develope in C++ that
>would be difficult if not impossible in Lisp?
>
>Yes, of course.  How about and utility under 100k?  >

Given UN*X or another C oriented operating system. How big would your
C utility be on a Lisp Machine? What makes you think that the
operating systems of the future will be more like UN*X than a Lisp
Machine? (You may have a valid reason. It may be right. What is it?)



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

	How many pentium designers does it take to change a lightbulb?
		1.99904274017
