3 ms·
I don't know what you're trying to say here. This thread was about someone saying in an alternate universe lisp computers might have caught on. They were never
by CyberDildonics 1y ago
I don't know what you're trying to say here. This thread was about someone saying in an alternate universe lisp computers might have caught on.
They were never going to catch on and it was never going to work because people didn't want them. Programmers might have wanted to program in lisp, but users didn't want to buy software made in lisp.
For some reason you're bringing up that someone may have written some scripts in an interpreted language which if anything reinforces that lisp machines weren't necessary.
- pjmlp 1y ago> I'd argue users wanted off the shelf software, not bespoke solutions, which is why they were cool with slow machines that ran 123, dBase and Wordperfect. Followed by > I don't know what you're trying to say here, all those programs would have run terribly if they were written in lisp or scheme. While dBase was written in Assembly, the interpreter, Clipper, the compiler was written in C, and dBase software written in xBase programming language, a programming language that by Clipper 5 days was just like Lisp or Scheme in capabilities, garbage collected, able to do functional programming, and OOP, in 640 KB, running on 20 MHz CPUs.
- CyberDildonics 1y agoWhat does this have to do with people wanting lisp machines? They couldn't do what people wanted. People didn't want their software written in lisp, they didn't want expensive hardware and slow software. Who cares if that software had interpreters in it?
- pjmlp 1y agoIt is like trying to explain a joke....
- CyberDildonics 1y agoIt's not like explaining a joke, if you could explain how any of this relates to lisp machines being successful I think you would have done it.