Re: Java GOOD -- Fire BAD

["Joe Marshall" <address@hidden>]

David Cohen writes:

> And: even if you find a company where you can work in Lisp/Prolog/etc.,
the
> perennial pattern (anti-pattern?) is that a working prototype or product
is
> built in Lisp/Prolog/etc. and then, despite the fact that the software
> works, management decides that it needs to be re-written in
C/C++/whatever.
> Even Paul Graham had this happen to him--Yahoo recently decided to port
> Yahoo store to C++ despite the fact that this would lead to a downgrade in
> functionality. Years ago I remember a Prolog project on Wall Street where
> the prototype was good enough to be put into production (not uncommon when
> working in these kinds of languages) and then management decided to
rewrite
> it in C++. The effort foundered. But the Prolog version in production was
> making enough money that it covered the cost of the failed C++ rewrite.
> I'll bet someone could fill a book or three with stories like this.

I have seen this happen time and time again:
   1.  Prototype is developed in Lisp
   2.  Attempt is made to port to a less capable platform:
        these days it's Java or C++, but in the 80's it was
        C and Ada (remember Ada?)
    3. The result is a general fiasco.

I have seen this happen quite often:
    1.  Flagship product is developed in C/C++
    2.  Somebody in R&D tries Lisp
    3.  Lisp version is quickly up and running, provides
        more features than the flagship product, and
        performs better.
    (unfortunately, this is usually followed with Lisp
    project cancelled, R&D guy gets disgusted and quits)

However, I have *never* seen:
    1.  Product or prototype developed in Lisp.
    2.  Subsequent product developed in C++ that is
         more capable, delivered on time and on budget.

Perhaps I'm living a sheltered existence.