3 ms·

Yeah, if only Microsoft had promoted Lisp the way they had Xenix, or the Zune, then _everybody_ would be using Lisp! Or if Sun had picked up the cause, then Lis

Yeah, if only Microsoft had promoted Lisp the way they had Xenix, or the Zune, then _everybody_ would be using Lisp! Or if Sun had picked up the cause, then Lisp would be used in all those set-top boxes the way Java is today. Oh, wait... Microsoft actually did have a diversity approach for their language tools division in the 1980s -- ever heard of MuLISP? The problem was that Lisp on MS-DOS or Windows 3 was not really a good fit for most (any?) personal computer at that time. Certainly not when compared with the likes of Turbo Pascal, say. It seems to me that programming languages get their moment in the sun if they offer some significant technical advantage for that particular time and market. Perl took off because it did seem better for some things at the time, for example, while the latest versions have seemed (to me, at least) as a desperate cry for attention when other dynamic languages have gotten most of the programmer love. If there's anything the last dozen years of language adoption have shown us, it is that "promotion" is only part of the equation and it can manifest in either a top-down or bottom-up fashion. (See Python or Ruby for examples of the latter.)

chc 16y ago
Not trying to sound hostile here, but your comparisons seem a little disingenuous. You're equating Lisp with an ancient operating system and a music player? Lisp is a programming language. Microsoft has other products in the category of programming languages. The ones it has pushed — Visual Basic, C# and (to a lesser degree, since it's NIH) C++ — have all been tremendously successful. This is because Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows dev tools and APIs that it can exploit to get developers using things. This monopoly is less useful for pushing Zunes. And to try and argue that Java is unsuccessful because it isn't used in set-top boxes? I don't even know what to say to that. The fact that Java's successes were in other domains than the one you hand-picked for your comparison does not somehow make them disappear. You may as well say that C was never very popular because no Ruby on Rails apps were ever written in it. The fact is that Lisp has not had any major backers since the AI craze fizzled out. If a Lisp had received the same kind of support as Java, C#, Objective-C or JavaScript, the language landscape might very well look quite different.
- tygorius 16y ago
  Well, I'm willing to entertain data that contradicts my thesis, but I'm unconvinced by either attacking my motives or distorting what I wrote. My point with the Microsoft language products of the 1980s was that they were willing to sell a variety of products if people were willing to buy them. They had Microsoft versions of Fortran, C, and Pascal as well. Xenix was their server solution back then, but that didn't really matter for that state of the market. The mention of the Zune was intended to highlight that the technical merits are dwarfed by right-place-and-time effects. I knew plenty of people who thought J++ was the wave of the future because, you know, that API lock-in is such a determinant for success. As to Java, I never said that it was unsuccessful. But Sun kept trying to flog Java as an embedded systems solution and it was an exercise in futility, whether it was the original set-top boxes, JINI, or those incredibly useful Java personalization ID rings like the one I have somewhere in a desk drawer. Having a major player pitch still didn't make it popular in embedded markets. Woulda-coulda-shoulda arguments about Lisp only lacking major backers are arguments based on a lack of data. If major backers are so key, then why were Python and Ruby so successful?
  - sedachv 16y ago
    Jini is a set of distributed system building tools, it had nothing to do with embedded systems. For what it's worth the core ideas of Jini are actually really great and robust, the problem is that it's not J2EE. No one wants to rewrite their shit for Jini, they'd rather try to throw the mess at things like Terracotta or bigger servers (for what it's worth, I've never seen a Java application that wasn't a piece of shit, so I can't really blame anyone). There was some research into applying the services model to mobile and wireless systems, which makes a lot of sense, but it was research as neither the market nor the underlying routing technology has yet to emerge. Also, Java has been immensely successful in smart cards and cellphones. You are seriously wrong about Java not being used in embedded systems.
    - tygorius 16y ago
      Jini has nothing to do with embedded systems? Really? Well, de facto, sure. But how did Sun originally pitch it? Let's do a little search and, oh, here's Bill Venners talking about the same topic in 2006: <http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=150666> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=150666&#62..., the Summary starts with "Sun's original marketing message that positioned Jini as a technology for devices backfired in 1999..." Perhaps we have different notions of embedded systems. I'm thinking of self-contained computers/microcontrollers that are part of a larger system/product with a significant incentive to keep hardware costs to a minimum. As in, use the cheapest processor and least amount of RAM as you can. Now that covers a large range, from 8-bit microcontrollers to high-end systems running real time OSs. The last time I was seriously following that field, however, the hands down favorite language was C. I would be greatly surprised if Java had even risen in usage to rival Forth in the embedded domain. If you have some contrasting data to provide, feel free. I'll give you partial credit for thinking of J2ME in mobile phones. But there's still a significant difference between programming games in J2ME or Flash for a phone and using Jave to program the phones themselves (ie, the underlying embedded system). Why do you think Nokia's recommendation for application builds was either gcc or, for those building their own phone ROMs, the proprietary ARM compiler?

chc 16y ago

Not trying to sound hostile here, but your comparisons seem a little disingenuous. You're equating Lisp with an ancient operating system and a music player? Lisp is a programming language. Microsoft has other products in the category of programming languages. The ones it has pushed — Visual Basic, C# and (to a lesser degree, since it's NIH) C++ — have all been tremendously successful. This is because Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows dev tools and APIs that it can exploit to get developers using things. This monopoly is less useful for pushing Zunes. And to try and argue that Java is unsuccessful because it isn't used in set-top boxes? I don't even know what to say to that. The fact that Java's successes were in other domains than the one you hand-picked for your comparison does not somehow make them disappear. You may as well say that C was never very popular because no Ruby on Rails apps were ever written in it. The fact is that Lisp has not had any major backers since the AI craze fizzled out. If a Lisp had received the same kind of support as Java, C#, Objective-C or JavaScript, the language landscape might very well look quite different.

tygorius 16y ago
Well, I'm willing to entertain data that contradicts my thesis, but I'm unconvinced by either attacking my motives or distorting what I wrote. My point with the Microsoft language products of the 1980s was that they were willing to sell a variety of products if people were willing to buy them. They had Microsoft versions of Fortran, C, and Pascal as well. Xenix was their server solution back then, but that didn't really matter for that state of the market. The mention of the Zune was intended to highlight that the technical merits are dwarfed by right-place-and-time effects. I knew plenty of people who thought J++ was the wave of the future because, you know, that API lock-in is such a determinant for success. As to Java, I never said that it was unsuccessful. But Sun kept trying to flog Java as an embedded systems solution and it was an exercise in futility, whether it was the original set-top boxes, JINI, or those incredibly useful Java personalization ID rings like the one I have somewhere in a desk drawer. Having a major player pitch still didn't make it popular in embedded markets. Woulda-coulda-shoulda arguments about Lisp only lacking major backers are arguments based on a lack of data. If major backers are so key, then why were Python and Ruby so successful?
- sedachv 16y ago
  Jini is a set of distributed system building tools, it had nothing to do with embedded systems. For what it's worth the core ideas of Jini are actually really great and robust, the problem is that it's not J2EE. No one wants to rewrite their shit for Jini, they'd rather try to throw the mess at things like Terracotta or bigger servers (for what it's worth, I've never seen a Java application that wasn't a piece of shit, so I can't really blame anyone). There was some research into applying the services model to mobile and wireless systems, which makes a lot of sense, but it was research as neither the market nor the underlying routing technology has yet to emerge. Also, Java has been immensely successful in smart cards and cellphones. You are seriously wrong about Java not being used in embedded systems.
  - tygorius 16y ago
    Jini has nothing to do with embedded systems? Really? Well, de facto, sure. But how did Sun originally pitch it? Let's do a little search and, oh, here's Bill Venners talking about the same topic in 2006: <http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=150666> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=150666&#62..., the Summary starts with "Sun's original marketing message that positioned Jini as a technology for devices backfired in 1999..." Perhaps we have different notions of embedded systems. I'm thinking of self-contained computers/microcontrollers that are part of a larger system/product with a significant incentive to keep hardware costs to a minimum. As in, use the cheapest processor and least amount of RAM as you can. Now that covers a large range, from 8-bit microcontrollers to high-end systems running real time OSs. The last time I was seriously following that field, however, the hands down favorite language was C. I would be greatly surprised if Java had even risen in usage to rival Forth in the embedded domain. If you have some contrasting data to provide, feel free. I'll give you partial credit for thinking of J2ME in mobile phones. But there's still a significant difference between programming games in J2ME or Flash for a phone and using Jave to program the phones themselves (ie, the underlying embedded system). Why do you think Nokia's recommendation for application builds was either gcc or, for those building their own phone ROMs, the proprietary ARM compiler?