Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!crd.ge.com
From: meltsner@crd.ge.com (Kenneth J Meltsner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Is this the end of the lisp wave?
Message-ID: <15714@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 15 Jan 91 20:24:44 GMT
References: <96861@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <5256@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <4178@syma.sussex.ac.uk> <5332@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <22645@well.sf.ca.us> <22650@well.sf.ca.us>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: meltsner@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research and Development Center
Lines: 26


In article <22650@well.sf.ca.us>, nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes:
|>     Symbolics closed at 7/16 yesterday, down 3/16.  The year's high was 10.,
|>so the stock has lost 96% of its value in the last year.  The end must be
|>near.


Why does everyone assume the problems of the LISP hardware
manufacturers means that LISP is defunct?  I've never used a LISP
machine, but I've had great time using LISP on my Mac, VAX, and
DECStation.  Am I missing some basic rule that says LISP on UNIX
workstations isn't really LISP at all?  Given what I've seen of
Symbolics' equipment, support, and management style, I'm not surprised
they're doing badly, but is everyone else in the same boat?  Are the
software vendors doing as badly?  How stable are Lucid, Franz, etc.?

In a similar vein, I unearthed the 2/87 issue of AI EXPERT describing
LISP and its future.  Too much to type in, but I'll try to find some
choice bits to quote.

===============================================================================
Ken Meltsner                        | meltsner@crd.ge.com (518) 387-6391
GE Research and Development Center  | Fax:  (518) 387-7495
P.O. Box 8, Room K1/MB207	    | Nothing I say should be attributed
Schenectady, NY 12301               | to my employer, and probably vice-versa
=================Dep't of Materials Science, ACME Looniversity=================