Subject: Re: free lisp compilers? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/09/06 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3145601309043540@naggum.no> * Friedrich Dominicus | Rainer wrote that dispite the fact that they seemed to be satisfied with | the Common Lisp solution they dropped it for another solutions. So my | guess was that the results weren't so amazing, becaus otherwise the | should have sticked to Common Lisp. this is so obviously invalid "reasonsaing" that it is becoming ever clearer that you have an agenda against Common Lisp. the choice of programming language is not a static, blind choice. in some cases, a system may evolve in Common Lisp because it is very hard figure out exactly how it should work. if and when it settles down and one might want to sell it to others in a similar bind as yourself, you face different requirements that have nothing to do with the language, and it may be very expensive to do stuff like producing runtime versions for all the platforms your customers might want it on. if your customers want source access (which is usual if you aren't too big a provider), you may also face a requirement to use a more popular language. | This might be true for corporations, but I would expect Lisp-Lovers of | scientists to do some comparisons. But I can't find much about that. the problem is how to trust such comparisons. scientifically-minded people understand such problems. | Just if the argument is that one is x times more productive in Lisp than | in any other language I think I'm allowed to ask for numbers. no, if you don't accept empirical evidence, you aren't allowed to ask, either. and as long as you continue to doubt without reason, nobody can ever hope to answer your question, because it is dishonest, simply a means to deny that which you cannot deny yourself, either. #:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers