5 ms·

The commercial aspect is not a problem in my opinion (but again english is not my main language so I might have conveyed the wrong tone). The issue is the prici

by galdor 4y ago

The commercial aspect is not a problem in my opinion (but again english is not my main language so I might have conveyed the wrong tone). The issue is the pricing model which may work for established company ready to invest money from the start, but is simply out of touch with independant developers and small companies exploring the possibility of using Common Lisp. Open sourcing Lispworks and selling support contracts and an enterprise version (with CAPI, CORBA, etc.) would make more sense. The world has changed: all other languages have open source implementations; most servers are open source, most databases too. It is hard to convince a company to use Common Lisp, but even harder to justify paying for a proprietary implementation. And for me personally, Lispworks would force me to buy two licenses (Linux and FreeBSD) for personal use, and two for my solo company. It simply does not make any sense financially speaking.

kgwgk 4y ago
> The issue is the pricing model which may work for established company ready to invest money from the start, but ... That's a much more nuanced way to put it - compared to "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone".
- oblio 4y ago
  > That's a much more nuanced way to put it - compared to "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone". Where does he say that?
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    https://www.n16f.net/blog/common-lisp-implementations-in-2023/#lispworks https://www.n16f.net/blog/common-lisp-implementations-in-202...
    - oblio 4y ago
      I've read it and if you're referring to this: > I do not have anything personal against commercial software, and I strongly support developers being paid for their work. But this kind of licensing makes Lispworks irrelevant to everyone but those already using their proprietary libraries. is he wrong? Go ask 100 random devs working for various companies. My money's on 99% on them avoiding those licensing terms in favor of probably anything else.
      - kgwgk 4y ago
        In case it was not clear I was referring to this literal quote from the linked article: "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone" which does indeed convey a more negative tone than this literal quote from the comment that I replied to: "the pricing model which may work for established company ready to invest money from the start"
        oblio 4y ago
        Ah, I was looking at the wrong quote. However, I think techies are too nitpicky. In casual use "everyone" or "anyone" do not mean: "I literally asked everyone on the surface of the planet". And he's not wrong. Unless you have a preexisting commitment to Lisp and ecosystem or your needs are so specific that you need this precise piece of software, you won't use it.
        varjag 4y ago
        I think it's a prior that anyone considering the choice of a Common Lisp implementation for production has a preexisting commitment to Lisp.
        kazinator 4y ago
        What's an example of something that is used for production without preexisting commitment?
        oblio 4y ago
  - lispm 4y ago
    On the page, commenting about LispWorks.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
anta40 4y ago
I assume you have some specific needs that couldn't be handled by open source Lisps like SBCL, CCL, etc?
- oblio 4y ago
  No, his needs are probably better handled by Java or .NET or Go or whatever. And that's how Lisp atrophies. The complaint is a valid one.
  - varjag 4y ago
    Enterprise Java licenses are charged per developer seat, just saying.
    - lispm 4y ago
      Hasn't this just recently changed to per employee? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3686611/oracle-per-employee-java-pricing-causes-concern.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3686611/oracle-per-employe...
      - hajile 4y ago
        $15/mo or $180/yr. Lispworks for that same platform support would cost about $20,000 per dev the first year then a few thousand every year after. You could buy 100 years of enterprise Java support for Jay one year of Lispworks.
        lispm 4y ago
        The Java license costs per employee. Not per developer. That's an entirely different business model in a very different market for a very different tool. It's a bit like claiming that your AMG Mercedes has a different pricing than a corporate car of a large fleet managed by a large rental company. That's trivially true, but you are comparing very different things.
    - oblio 4y ago
lispm 4y ago
> Open sourcing Lispworks and selling support contracts and an enterprise version (with CAPI, CORBA, etc.) would make more sense. I don't think it makes any sense, since the market for such complex Lisp systems is tiny. It would not generate a reliable revenue stream for such a niche technology. It's not that it has not been tried in the past, but all Lisp vendors from the past, and there were a dozen or more with different license models / pricing, have gone. Left are Franz and LispWorks. Both are 30+ years in business.
- hajile 4y ago
  They know their locked-in customers, but they also know they don’t get many additional customers at those prices either.
  - lispm 4y ago
    The market is small anyway. Better have customers at all. Mabe the customers are not "locked in", but happy that there are remaining offerings. See the pricing for commercial Smalltalk. Same thing.
matrix12 4y ago
The linux lispworks runs fine for me on Freebsd with linux_compat.
andsoitis 4y ago
You wrote of LispWorks: “ The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone” Perhaps a question I would ask is what are you trying to convey with this statement? It appears to be quite subjective.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  You quote him saying "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone" your quote is the definition of "out of context", you left out his colon leading to the rest of his sentence where he explains what he means, i.e. what you are asking. "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone: you will have to buy separate licenses for every..." ...now, I'm not quoting the rest of it because while it's easy to engage with a substantive argument, you didn't say anything. Still your move.
  - kjs3 4y ago
    Since you're going to be a condescending pendant...everything after the colon is why it doesn't make sense for him, not why it doesn't make sense for anyone, and it's very clear that's the point he's making. It's a common fallacy around here: "I think this, therefore it's applicable to everyone".
    - inimino 4y ago
      *pedant. ;-)
      - kjs3 4y ago
        Ouch. And thus, all my sophistry is discredited. ;-)

by galdor 4y ago

kgwgk 4y ago

> The issue is the pricing model which may work for established company ready to invest money from the start, but ... That's a much more nuanced way to put it - compared to "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone".

oblio 4y ago
> That's a much more nuanced way to put it - compared to "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone". Where does he say that?
- kgwgk 4y ago
  https://www.n16f.net/blog/common-lisp-implementations-in-2023/#lispworks https://www.n16f.net/blog/common-lisp-implementations-in-202...
  - oblio 4y ago
    I've read it and if you're referring to this: > I do not have anything personal against commercial software, and I strongly support developers being paid for their work. But this kind of licensing makes Lispworks irrelevant to everyone but those already using their proprietary libraries. is he wrong? Go ask 100 random devs working for various companies. My money's on 99% on them avoiding those licensing terms in favor of probably anything else.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      In case it was not clear I was referring to this literal quote from the linked article: "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone" which does indeed convey a more negative tone than this literal quote from the comment that I replied to: "the pricing model which may work for established company ready to invest money from the start"
      - oblio 4y ago
        Ah, I was looking at the wrong quote. However, I think techies are too nitpicky. In casual use "everyone" or "anyone" do not mean: "I literally asked everyone on the surface of the planet". And he's not wrong. Unless you have a preexisting commitment to Lisp and ecosystem or your needs are so specific that you need this precise piece of software, you won't use it.
        varjag 4y ago
        I think it's a prior that anyone considering the choice of a Common Lisp implementation for production has a preexisting commitment to Lisp.
        kazinator 4y ago
        What's an example of something that is used for production without preexisting commitment?
        oblio 4y ago
- lispm 4y ago
  On the page, commenting about LispWorks.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

anta40 4y ago

I assume you have some specific needs that couldn't be handled by open source Lisps like SBCL, CCL, etc?

oblio 4y ago
No, his needs are probably better handled by Java or .NET or Go or whatever. And that's how Lisp atrophies. The complaint is a valid one.
- varjag 4y ago
  Enterprise Java licenses are charged per developer seat, just saying.
  - lispm 4y ago
    Hasn't this just recently changed to per employee? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3686611/oracle-per-employee-java-pricing-causes-concern.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3686611/oracle-per-employe...
    - hajile 4y ago
      $15/mo or $180/yr. Lispworks for that same platform support would cost about $20,000 per dev the first year then a few thousand every year after. You could buy 100 years of enterprise Java support for Jay one year of Lispworks.
      - lispm 4y ago
        The Java license costs per employee. Not per developer. That's an entirely different business model in a very different market for a very different tool. It's a bit like claiming that your AMG Mercedes has a different pricing than a corporate car of a large fleet managed by a large rental company. That's trivially true, but you are comparing very different things.
  - oblio 4y ago

lispm 4y ago

> Open sourcing Lispworks and selling support contracts and an enterprise version (with CAPI, CORBA, etc.) would make more sense. I don't think it makes any sense, since the market for such complex Lisp systems is tiny. It would not generate a reliable revenue stream for such a niche technology. It's not that it has not been tried in the past, but all Lisp vendors from the past, and there were a dozen or more with different license models / pricing, have gone. Left are Franz and LispWorks. Both are 30+ years in business.

hajile 4y ago
They know their locked-in customers, but they also know they don’t get many additional customers at those prices either.
- lispm 4y ago
  The market is small anyway. Better have customers at all. Mabe the customers are not "locked in", but happy that there are remaining offerings. See the pricing for commercial Smalltalk. Same thing.

matrix12 4y ago

The linux lispworks runs fine for me on Freebsd with linux_compat.

andsoitis 4y ago

You wrote of LispWorks: “ The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone” Perhaps a question I would ask is what are you trying to convey with this statement? It appears to be quite subjective.

fsckboy 4y ago
You quote him saying "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone" your quote is the definition of "out of context", you left out his colon leading to the rest of his sentence where he explains what he means, i.e. what you are asking. "The professional and enterprise licenses do not really make sense for anyone: you will have to buy separate licenses for every..." ...now, I'm not quoting the rest of it because while it's easy to engage with a substantive argument, you didn't say anything. Still your move.
- kjs3 4y ago
  Since you're going to be a condescending pendant...everything after the colon is why it doesn't make sense for him, not why it doesn't make sense for anyone, and it's very clear that's the point he's making. It's a common fallacy around here: "I think this, therefore it's applicable to everyone".
  - inimino 4y ago
    *pedant. ;-)
    - kjs3 4y ago
      Ouch. And thus, all my sophistry is discredited. ;-)