3 ms·

>I think had there been solid cheap or free Smalltalk and Common Lisp implementations around 1992, Java wouldn’t have gained a foothold, though C++ would have s

>I think had there been solid cheap or free Smalltalk and Common Lisp implementations around 1992, Java wouldn’t have gained a foothold, though C++ would have still been very appealing to C developers, though perhaps if Objective-C were more broadly available to non-NeXT developers, it would’ve been a formidable competitor to C++ in terms of providing a “C with objects” environment. 100% agree. i think it is also interesting that in comparison to before lisp community of today is so supportive of free software, standing more on the left wing of the open source community.

linguae 3y ago
Interestingly enough, the free software movement came about due to Richard Stallman’s frustrations with Symbolics, one of the Lisp machine companies that came from the same MIT AI lab he worked in. It’s just that RMS chose to reimplement Unix (GNU) instead of creating a free Lisp operating system, though one could argue half-jokingly and half-seriously that GNU Emacs is that free Lisp OS.
- EdwardCoffin 3y ago
  I understood it came about due to RMS wanting the source for the printer driver for the Xerox 9700 - nothing to do with Symbolics.
  - linguae 3y ago
    The printer driver situation was RMS’s last straw, but he was already saddened by the demise of the sharing culture of the MIT AI lab once Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. were founded, and he spent a considerable amount of effort reimplementing features from Symbolics: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html
    - p_l 3y ago
      There's a lot more to the history. My favourite quote from some other participants was "he didn't see us at lunch not because AI Lab culture died, but because we avoided him"
      - treadmill 3y ago
        Source?
- anthk 3y ago
  I was about to say that, point to point. But, think about that. Unix was the cool thing from the 80's, so even if ITS was a hackers' dream, mixing Unix' utilitarianism with Emacs' Elisp hackability on top of that wouldn't be so bad under a proper GNU kernel + Emacs userland system.
pfdietz 3y ago
There's basically one commercial Common Lisp left (Allegro from Franz), and they're focusing more on things built on top of the Lisp (like AllegroGraph), not the Lisp itself. So the free CLs have sort of won by default, and perhaps also by sucking the oxygen out of the room for expensive proprietary CLs.
- dasyatidprime 3y ago
  Do you not count LispWorks in this? I haven't had a chance to play with the commercial Lisps myself, but anecdotally it seems to still have some currency.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    I didn't, but perhaps I should have. There's a question of whether it's live enough to count, or if it's just in maintenance mode. The last release was in 2021, but there have been gaps that long before that.
    - whartung 3y ago
      Common Lisp hasn’t changed a whole lot since 2021. And it supports Apple Silicon, and it even has, apparently, a Mobile runtime. I imagine that’s ticking the boxes for most of their users, and they’re not in the endless “security update” treadmill.
    - lispm 3y ago
      compare the last release dates 2012 Allegro CL 9.0 2015 Allegro CL 10.0 2017 Allegro CL 10.1 2024 Allegro CL 11.0 2012 LispWorks 6.1 2012 LispWorks 6.1.1 2015 LispWorks 7.0 2017 LispWorks 7.1 2018 LispWorks 7.1.1 2019 LispWorks 7.1.2 2021 Lispworks 8.0 2022 LispWorks 8.0.1 Looks similar to me. LispWorks also had patch releases in between. Both are on the market for more than 35 years. Both are mostly written with CLOS and thus are especially to update with patches, additionally to the usual ways to update code (-> late binding). One just loads patches (which are mostly compiled Lisp code) into a running Lisp and that's it. Alternatively one can save a new image with patches loaded. When one needs a patch or a feature, one would typically contact them directly. Both provide patches to the users. Franz has made that simple for the user, they have a relatively continuously stream of patches, one can call an update function and it gets the necessary patches and installs them. SBCL has monthly (!) releases, where the user (that's what I do) would typically compile it from scratch using the supplied sources. Updating is quick, around a minute for a recompile.

linguae 3y ago

Interestingly enough, the free software movement came about due to Richard Stallman’s frustrations with Symbolics, one of the Lisp machine companies that came from the same MIT AI lab he worked in. It’s just that RMS chose to reimplement Unix (GNU) instead of creating a free Lisp operating system, though one could argue half-jokingly and half-seriously that GNU Emacs is that free Lisp OS.

EdwardCoffin 3y ago
I understood it came about due to RMS wanting the source for the printer driver for the Xerox 9700 - nothing to do with Symbolics.
- linguae 3y ago
  The printer driver situation was RMS’s last straw, but he was already saddened by the demise of the sharing culture of the MIT AI lab once Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. were founded, and he spent a considerable amount of effort reimplementing features from Symbolics: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html
  - p_l 3y ago
    There's a lot more to the history. My favourite quote from some other participants was "he didn't see us at lunch not because AI Lab culture died, but because we avoided him"
    - treadmill 3y ago
      Source?
anthk 3y ago
I was about to say that, point to point. But, think about that. Unix was the cool thing from the 80's, so even if ITS was a hackers' dream, mixing Unix' utilitarianism with Emacs' Elisp hackability on top of that wouldn't be so bad under a proper GNU kernel + Emacs userland system.

pfdietz 3y ago

There's basically one commercial Common Lisp left (Allegro from Franz), and they're focusing more on things built on top of the Lisp (like AllegroGraph), not the Lisp itself. So the free CLs have sort of won by default, and perhaps also by sucking the oxygen out of the room for expensive proprietary CLs.

dasyatidprime 3y ago
Do you not count LispWorks in this? I haven't had a chance to play with the commercial Lisps myself, but anecdotally it seems to still have some currency.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I didn't, but perhaps I should have. There's a question of whether it's live enough to count, or if it's just in maintenance mode. The last release was in 2021, but there have been gaps that long before that.
  - whartung 3y ago
    Common Lisp hasn’t changed a whole lot since 2021. And it supports Apple Silicon, and it even has, apparently, a Mobile runtime. I imagine that’s ticking the boxes for most of their users, and they’re not in the endless “security update” treadmill.
  - lispm 3y ago
    compare the last release dates 2012 Allegro CL 9.0 2015 Allegro CL 10.0 2017 Allegro CL 10.1 2024 Allegro CL 11.0 2012 LispWorks 6.1 2012 LispWorks 6.1.1 2015 LispWorks 7.0 2017 LispWorks 7.1 2018 LispWorks 7.1.1 2019 LispWorks 7.1.2 2021 Lispworks 8.0 2022 LispWorks 8.0.1 Looks similar to me. LispWorks also had patch releases in between. Both are on the market for more than 35 years. Both are mostly written with CLOS and thus are especially to update with patches, additionally to the usual ways to update code (-> late binding). One just loads patches (which are mostly compiled Lisp code) into a running Lisp and that's it. Alternatively one can save a new image with patches loaded. When one needs a patch or a feature, one would typically contact them directly. Both provide patches to the users. Franz has made that simple for the user, they have a relatively continuously stream of patches, one can call an update function and it gets the necessary patches and installs them. SBCL has monthly (!) releases, where the user (that's what I do) would typically compile it from scratch using the supplied sources. Updating is quick, around a minute for a recompile.