[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Java GOOD -- Fire BAD
Joe Marshall said:
> 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.
About 10 years ago I did a project in which we took a Lisp prototype and
re-wrote it in ANSI C. Our result was more capable, within time/budget
(perhaps because when we started it most people were certain it would
fail...), and -- most importantly --fun. Unlike the prototype, it could also
run in a realtime, memory-restricted, environment. (In fact, I'm told it's
still operational today.)
I believe the reason our project was the exception rather than the rule is
that the effort of redesigning a Lisp solution to get a C/C++ solution is
often grossly underestimated. Indeed, sometimes people don't even see the
need for a redesign.