

Looming Lisp Boom?  - kirubakaran
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/79ade0f0e4232fe2/5a46764b5073dfd3

======
pchristensen
Sigh. I followed this discussion on c.l.l and it was too painful to contribute
to. I was hoping it wouldn't follow me here, but since it's here, I guess I'll
put in my $0.02. I trust HN readers more than c.l.l.

No one denies the power and goodness of Lisp. Also, everybody knows its issues

1) misconceptions based on its history (it's a slow, AI language)

2) portability issues among implementations (pathnames, sockets, GUI, etc

3) lack of standard implementation

#1 is a marketing problem - tractable with effort (just look what pg's essays
alone have done). #2 is a coding resource problem - many hands make light
work.

For #3, once there is a platform implementation with all the right features
(threads, unicode), this problem goes away. If CLisp added threads or if SBCL
worked on Windows, the game would be over - other implementations would
continue but there would be an unambiguous choice for n00bs. De facto
portability standards would form around that implementation and the burden
would be on other implementations would make it compatible with the de facto
winner.

I'm not invested in any of the implementations but it looks to me like SBCL is
the closest to being the full featured, cross platform, open source
implementation that is currently lacking. So as a pragmatist wanting Lisp to
become bigger, I have three choices:

1) through my writing, encourage people to choose SBCL

2) contribute coding help to the SBCL windows port

3) whine

Most people choose #3. I'm not confident in my coding chops to do #2, so I'm
focusing on #1. I have the time and ability to write well and I hope to add
momentum to the front runner and make choices easier for new users.

Of course, the foolproof way is for someone to make something indispensable
using Lisp so people can't help but adopt it (like Unix/Linux did for C).

-see also Bill Clementson's take on this from a couple years ago <http://bc.tech.coop/blog/060403.html>

~~~
bridgetroll
On the topic of SBCL: A few days ago I downloaded SBCL 1.0.13 on my WinXP
laptop and have been playing around with it to get back into Lisp. So far its
worked to go through some exercises. I'm using Paul's "ANSI Common Lisp" book
which I needed for one of my CS programming classes years ago. Last serious
Lisp programming I did was at Interleaf, when they _were_ Interleaf, so I've
got a lot of cobwebs to brush off. I've got some specific tools I want to
implement, so I'll probably run into issues with the incomplete port and if I
can carve out the time, have no problem helping out.

~~~
Zak
SBCL seems to work pretty well on Windows, but it doesn't have threads on
Windows. As far as I know, no Common Lisp has native threads on Windows. I
think Allegro and Lispworks have their own threading systems, but can't make
use of more than one CPU/core.

------
wheels
Yep. It'll probably happen in conjunction with The Year Of The Linux Desktop.

~~~
martythemaniak
Is that before or after Duke Nukem Forever?

~~~
wheels
Yes.

~~~
annoyed
both before and after.

------
mojuba
Lisp will hardly ever make it into the corporate hierarchies, where non-coding
bosses want you to write in the dumbest possible language. And unfortunately
without conquering this market a true boom is impossible.

Perhaps for this reason Lisp became an individualist, niche language.

~~~
mynameishere
_non-coding bosses_

My impression is that non-coding bosses don't care that much, or, they care
enough to recommend what they read in trade journals. Solution: Talk up Lisp
(etc) in trade journals. That java is a standard because it is "dumb" is a
myth. Not one CTO in a million went through a catalog of languages and said,
"Nope, this has closures. Nope, this has eval()..." Otherwise, they would have
come to, "Nope, this has garbage collection... We're sticking with COBOL."

~~~
mojuba
From my experience in different companies, big and small, decisions are made
based on the number of factors:

* Trade journals, as you said, which appeal solely to the corporate bosses; although I'd give this a lower importance among others.

* Wages and availability of programmers in the job market.

* A chance for the boss to understand the language and/or to talk about architecture on the meetings easily, if needed. This one is interesting, as, I think, that's the main reason Java is popular. Smarter bosses can read some semi-technical journals, where "patters", "methodologies" and "common practices" are explained well for them -- just for them.

So, Java clearly wins in all 3 points, while Lisp loses in all 3.

~~~
graywh
How about another one that also applies to open-source software:

* Corporation to blame for its problems and shortcomings.

------
kuniklo
Change the dates on this thread from 2008 to anything from 2000-2007 and you
can find a thousand other threads just like it on c.l.l.

The short answer - don't hold your breath.

------
brlewis
[http://ourdoings.com/boston-
lisp/photo.html?th=zh/c3/nssk.jp...](http://ourdoings.com/boston-
lisp/photo.html?th=zh/c3/nssk.jpg&d=2008-03-31)

