RE: Java GOOD -- Fire BAD

[Scott McKay <address@hidden>]

At 11:20 AM +0200 8/22/03, Ziv Caspi wrote:
>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

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
The key words here are "re-wrote it".

If you had re-written it in a restricted dialect of Lisp,
you would have achieved the same effect.

>(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.
>
>Ziv Caspi
>   cell: +972-53-668-751
>     web: http://radio.weblogs.com/0106548/