Re: Java GOOD -- Fire BAD

["Joe Marshall" <address@hidden>]

Obviously there are mitigating circumstances in many cases.
Several million lines of Java code may be one.

But there's enough evidence around that Lisp is rejected
not for any rational reason but just `because'.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Weinreb" <dlweinreb@rcn.com>
To: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Cc: "Joe Marshall" <jrm@ccs.neu.edu>; "Jerry Jackson"
<Jerry.Jackson@sun.com>; <ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 16:39
Subject: Re: Java GOOD -- Fire BAD


>
> >I prefer to think of it the way Paul Graham does: if you use lisp, you
> >have a competitive advantage. Smart bosses will let you do it and the
> >stupid ones will fail to survive in the long run, or at least will get
> >fewer resources to play with.
> >
> Smart bosses are required to take into account a lot of factors when
> choosing a language, the most
> imporant one being "what we're using now".  If you go to work at a house
> that already has 50
> trained Java programmers, and many, many millions of lines of Java code,
> the cost of introducing
> a new "better" but exotic language is quite high.  We've gone into this
> discussion before on this
> list so I'd rather not reiterate.  (Not to even mention cursing and
> recursing.)
>
>
>