[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
China Black & Blue wrote in message ...
>/ By 1980, the Lisp Machine OS was written entirely in Lisp.
>/ And, by 1985, the Lisp Machine's front-end processor --
>
>A real commercial success.
What's your point? That commercial success is an indicator
of excellent technology? So explain why Apollo failed, despite
its high level of excellent technology. Explain why Microsoft
succeeded in the face of its crap technology. Commercial
success and good technology have nothing to do with each
other. FWIW, during the 80's, Symbolics was a $100M/year
company, which by most measures is hardly a failure.
I should mention some other technologies, BTW, just to be
fair:
- Dave Thomas, out of I-don't-remember-where in Canada,
was building high-performance Smalltalk apps that got
blown onto PROMs and delivered in embeddable systems
by the early 90's at the very latest.
- Both Symbolics and Harlequin built real-time Lisps systems
for use in high-performance hardware switches, Symbolics
on top of its own Lisp OS called Minima, Harlequin on top
of VXWorks. These systems had to meet stringent real-time
constraints -- and did meet them.
- Gensym has been building real-time Lisp systems for at least
a decade, and still runs a successful business.
Your arguments just don't hold water.
Follow-Ups:
References: