48 ms·

The usual reasons to not develop or even reimplement custom languages (like the language for a computer algebra system) was/is performance and memory. Plus the

by lispm 5y ago

The usual reasons to not develop or even reimplement custom languages (like the language for a computer algebra system) was/is performance and memory. Plus the limited availability of compilers for certain computer types. Even during the 80s memory was very expensive (workstations) and limited (PCs). Thus it could have made sense to implement a language such that it runs in smaller space to save a lot of money on the user side. Still, there were Lisp-based computer algebra systems on small (Derive, MuMath/MuSimp, ...) and large computers (REDUCE, Macsyma, Scratchpad)... Also depending on the availability of a certain Lisp system was problematic, when a C or later a C++ compiler was usually provided... -> but then one was responsible for the maintenance of the implemented.

7thaccount 5y ago
That was kinda what I would've guessed. Even if lisp was just fine doing symbolics, it would've been a bigger resource hog than something custom done well. I wasn't aware of the lisp CAS on smaller systems. I figured when Mathematica first came out, lisp was mainly running on things like symbolics lisp machines. Is that incorrect?
- lispm 5y ago
  When Mathematica came out (1988) there were already Lisps for PCs and Macs. Lisp at that time made the switch to Common Lisp. Symbolics Lisp Machines were used for higher-end AI, CAD, etc. domains. There was a bunch of very different options across many platforms (PCs, Macs, UNIX Workstations, ...). Macsyma itself ran on various platforms, incl. Lisp Machines, UNIX, VAX/VMS, and then also on Windows. Derive even ran on some TI calculators. It was written in muLISP.
  - 7thaccount 5y ago
    You need to write a book on this history lol.