3 ms·

If Google bought them, would they force ITA to rewrite their C++ / Lisp engine in Java?

paddy_m 17y ago
I hope not and I doubt that would happen. One of ITA's biggest assets is their employees. Those employees are there in large part because they get to use lisp on the job. Also ITA deals with incredibly complex problems and has very complex software, rewriting it in other languages would be a serious undertaking.
- runevault 17y ago
  While I'm not sure I buy the GP/GGP (can't see from the post window >_<) point that Google NEEDS a Lisp/CL team, I have a hard time imagining they would buy ITA for such a large sum of money only to piss off all the employees, and at the same time basically throwing away the tech if they wanted to rewrite it away from CL. The money is simply too much for doing that to make sense. Unless they feel ITA's market position alone is worth that much cash, but I find that hard to believe. edit: Bah wasn't in the same exact thread line but was mentioned, excuse the dumb on the grandparent/Great Grand Parent part.
zandorg 17y ago
I think Lisp would be one reason TO buy them. Google needs a Lisp team and I imagine they realise this.
- hazzen 17y ago
  Can you expand on why you believe Google needs a Lisp team? I am having trouble coming up with any convincing argument for needing one.
  - zandorg 17y ago
    Because it's a language in which you can be incredibly productive. The only downside is speed of execution, but optimisations help. Why I think Google needs one? Because they don't have one, and considering their financial resources, they can afford it, and because ITA will pay for itself.
    - pavs 17y ago
      1 billion dollars for a developer team who uses certain language? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to hire the team?
    - tlack 17y ago
      Do you think they'll also spend top dollar to "buy teams" that are good at other languages? Kind of a ridiculous concept - surely if the gains of Lisp were actual, Google would just pay their employees to learn and use Lisp.
      - zandorg 17y ago
        (also answer to pavs) Well, when Google acquired ReMail, everyone here said "It's a talent acquisition". So why should this be any different - $1b for the world's best Lisp hackers?
        philwelch 17y ago
        Talent acquisitions are usually in the millions, not the billions. If you're paying a billion dollars, you want to get more than talent out of the deal. There are probably cheaper ways for Google to get excellent Lispers.
    - snth 17y ago
      I think they probably have a couple people that know Lisp... Peter Norvig probably knows some :)
    - billjings 17y ago
      Airline flight scheduling and pricing is harder than lisp.
- gaius 17y ago
  Not at all http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html The conversation went something like this: Me: I'd like to talk to you about something... Him: Let me guess - you want to use Smalltalk. Me: Er, no... Him: Lisp? Me: Right. Him: No way. And that was the end of Lisp at Google.
  - zachbeane 17y ago
    Sounds a bit like how Smalltalk was banished from Viaweb: http://xach.livejournal.com/146281.html http://xach.livejournal.com/146281.html
  - silverlake 17y ago
    I believe "him" was Urs Holzle, who built runtimes for Self, Samlltalk and Java (which was later bought by Sun). Urs knows way more about these languages than Gat. His "no way" should be enough for anyone.
    - gaius 17y ago
      OK, but Ron Garrett's no lightweight either: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a289d3f6 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a2...
    - swah 17y ago
      ...with Lars Bak.
- felixc 17y ago
  You think Google doesn't already have people who know Lisp and would love to use it if they were allowed to? :)
  - swah 17y ago
    Python is fine for Norvig.
moultano 17y ago
Why would they do that? Half of Google uses C++.
- jrockway 17y ago
  But not Lisp.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    Google is using Scheme for most of the code on their "App Inventor for Android" program, which is supposed to be a modern-day successor to Hypercard: a way for interested amateurs to easily make basic mobile phone apps. Then again, not every Google project has Hal Abelson on the team. That might have something to do with it. http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/app-inventor-for-android.html http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/app-inventor-for-...
s-phi-nl 17y ago
Given that Google does rewrite the code of many companies that they buy, it wouldn't be surprising if they did rewrite the ITA code.
- jey 17y ago
  Unlikely. ITA's codebase is probably really, really, really huge by now, and I get the impression that they consider their use of Lisp to be important to their success.
- strlen 17y ago
  As others pointed out, there's already an existing code base. It's large, it works (solves hard problems) and it's scalable. There's also non-trivial C++ and Lisp integration, replacing Lisp FFI with Java JNI in some of these cases might not even work _at all_. ITA also does use Java, so Java integration is already there, to plug into Google's front/middle tier. I imagine data persistence and distributed workloads are handled by the C++ portion of ITA code, which means plugging into GFS, BigTable, Chubby and more wouldn't be that difficult. ITA had already done the hard job of working around Common Lisp's missing pieces (a standard on concurrency and systems/network programming), something which would have been a huge distraction to e.g., Google in 2001 (when Ron Garrett attempted to evangelize Lisp). Lastly, ITA isn't dependent on an acquisition by Google in the same way a start-up with no revenue (being acquired for talent and/or audience) would be. They're being bought partly for talent, but also they're being bought for actual technology and a working, profitable business. That gives them a lot more leverage in setting the terms of the acquisition (has e.g., Postini undergone a full re-write?). These issues is what "technical due diligence" is supposed to work out and resolve: would an integration necessarily mean driving the employees away? If this is so and such integration would have to occur, then the merger may simply not happen. Even in the case of a pure talent acquisition care has to be taken to avoid an exodus. Money isn't going to the deciding factor here: I'd imagine ITA employees are less bound by golden handcuffs; they're not staring at life changing sums of money and (like most hackers) are more motivated by doing interesting work with smart peers and powerful tools, than by what is effectively a equivalent to a yearly bonus (I am assuming they're likely looking at $100,000-$200,000 in shares vesting over a four year period).

I hope not and I doubt that would happen. One of ITA's biggest assets is their employees. Those employees are there in large part because they get to use lisp on the job. Also ITA deals with incredibly complex problems and has very complex software, rewriting it in other languages would be a serious undertaking.

runevault 17y ago
While I'm not sure I buy the GP/GGP (can't see from the post window >_<) point that Google NEEDS a Lisp/CL team, I have a hard time imagining they would buy ITA for such a large sum of money only to piss off all the employees, and at the same time basically throwing away the tech if they wanted to rewrite it away from CL. The money is simply too much for doing that to make sense. Unless they feel ITA's market position alone is worth that much cash, but I find that hard to believe. edit: Bah wasn't in the same exact thread line but was mentioned, excuse the dumb on the grandparent/Great Grand Parent part.

zandorg 17y ago

I think Lisp would be one reason TO buy them. Google needs a Lisp team and I imagine they realise this.

hazzen 17y ago
Can you expand on why you believe Google needs a Lisp team? I am having trouble coming up with any convincing argument for needing one.
- zandorg 17y ago
  Because it's a language in which you can be incredibly productive. The only downside is speed of execution, but optimisations help. Why I think Google needs one? Because they don't have one, and considering their financial resources, they can afford it, and because ITA will pay for itself.
  - pavs 17y ago
    1 billion dollars for a developer team who uses certain language? Wouldn't it be cheaper just to hire the team?
  - tlack 17y ago
    Do you think they'll also spend top dollar to "buy teams" that are good at other languages? Kind of a ridiculous concept - surely if the gains of Lisp were actual, Google would just pay their employees to learn and use Lisp.
    - zandorg 17y ago
      (also answer to pavs) Well, when Google acquired ReMail, everyone here said "It's a talent acquisition". So why should this be any different - $1b for the world's best Lisp hackers?
      - philwelch 17y ago
        Talent acquisitions are usually in the millions, not the billions. If you're paying a billion dollars, you want to get more than talent out of the deal. There are probably cheaper ways for Google to get excellent Lispers.
  - snth 17y ago
    I think they probably have a couple people that know Lisp... Peter Norvig probably knows some :)
  - billjings 17y ago
    Airline flight scheduling and pricing is harder than lisp.
gaius 17y ago
Not at all http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html The conversation went something like this: Me: I'd like to talk to you about something... Him: Let me guess - you want to use Smalltalk. Me: Er, no... Him: Lisp? Me: Right. Him: No way. And that was the end of Lisp at Google.
- zachbeane 17y ago
  Sounds a bit like how Smalltalk was banished from Viaweb: http://xach.livejournal.com/146281.html http://xach.livejournal.com/146281.html
- silverlake 17y ago
  I believe "him" was Urs Holzle, who built runtimes for Self, Samlltalk and Java (which was later bought by Sun). Urs knows way more about these languages than Gat. His "no way" should be enough for anyone.
  - gaius 17y ago
    OK, but Ron Garrett's no lightweight either: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a289d3f6 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/6f75cfb5a2...
  - swah 17y ago
    ...with Lars Bak.
felixc 17y ago
You think Google doesn't already have people who know Lisp and would love to use it if they were allowed to? :)
- swah 17y ago
  Python is fine for Norvig.

moultano 17y ago

Why would they do that? Half of Google uses C++.

jrockway 17y ago
But not Lisp.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Google is using Scheme for most of the code on their "App Inventor for Android" program, which is supposed to be a modern-day successor to Hypercard: a way for interested amateurs to easily make basic mobile phone apps. Then again, not every Google project has Hal Abelson on the team. That might have something to do with it. http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/app-inventor-for-android.html http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/07/app-inventor-for-...

s-phi-nl 17y ago

Given that Google does rewrite the code of many companies that they buy, it wouldn't be surprising if they did rewrite the ITA code.

jey 17y ago
Unlikely. ITA's codebase is probably really, really, really huge by now, and I get the impression that they consider their use of Lisp to be important to their success.
strlen 17y ago
As others pointed out, there's already an existing code base. It's large, it works (solves hard problems) and it's scalable. There's also non-trivial C++ and Lisp integration, replacing Lisp FFI with Java JNI in some of these cases might not even work _at all_. ITA also does use Java, so Java integration is already there, to plug into Google's front/middle tier. I imagine data persistence and distributed workloads are handled by the C++ portion of ITA code, which means plugging into GFS, BigTable, Chubby and more wouldn't be that difficult. ITA had already done the hard job of working around Common Lisp's missing pieces (a standard on concurrency and systems/network programming), something which would have been a huge distraction to e.g., Google in 2001 (when Ron Garrett attempted to evangelize Lisp). Lastly, ITA isn't dependent on an acquisition by Google in the same way a start-up with no revenue (being acquired for talent and/or audience) would be. They're being bought partly for talent, but also they're being bought for actual technology and a working, profitable business. That gives them a lot more leverage in setting the terms of the acquisition (has e.g., Postini undergone a full re-write?). These issues is what "technical due diligence" is supposed to work out and resolve: would an integration necessarily mean driving the employees away? If this is so and such integration would have to occur, then the merger may simply not happen. Even in the case of a pure talent acquisition care has to be taken to avoid an exodus. Money isn't going to the deciding factor here: I'd imagine ITA employees are less bound by golden handcuffs; they're not staring at life changing sums of money and (like most hackers) are more motivated by doing interesting work with smart peers and powerful tools, than by what is effectively a equivalent to a yearly bonus (I am assuming they're likely looking at $100,000-$200,000 in shares vesting over a four year period).