Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

patterns-discussion - Re: [patterns-discussion] Pattern-Oriented Programming

patterns-discussion AT lists.siebelschool.illinois.edu

Subject: General talk about software patterns

List archive

Re: [patterns-discussion] Pattern-Oriented Programming


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Mark Grand <mgrand AT mindspring.com>
  • To: Ralph Johnson <johnson AT cs.uiuc.edu>, Mike Beedle <beedlem AT e-architects.com>, "'Pascal Costanza'" <pascal AT p-cos.net>
  • Cc: patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu
  • Subject: Re: [patterns-discussion] Pattern-Oriented Programming
  • Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:10:14 -0400
  • List-archive: <http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
  • List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>

In the commercial sector, it is hard to find Lisp or Smalltalk people. Reimplementing in a more common language will, over time, reduce costs and make the progress of software development more predictable.

In over 30 years, I have only been involved in one commercial project that used lisp.

At 05:42 PM 10/24/2004, Ralph Johnson wrote:
Paul Graham built a system and a company, and sold the company to Yahoo.
Yahoo took it over and was successful with it, but eventually rewrote it all
in Java. This is a typical story. Why do people take successful systems in
Lisp (or Smalltalk, or ...) and rewrite them in much more boring and less
powerful languages? We need to understand this if we want to make the world
safe for powerful languages.

Mark Grand (404)925-8265





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page