In article <··········@search01.news.aol.com> ·········@aol.com (RTClarkJr) writes:
>
>
>Does anyone out there have some benchmarks as to which is the fastest
>common lisp? Using Gabriel benchmarks or something similar?
>
>Rob.
Of course since there are now only two companies in the Professional Lisp
Business: Franz and Harelquin, you should keep in mind that their products
may be the only ones that are being continually refined and updated for
future speed increases . . . So keep this in mind if some other lisp
system is found to be "faster."
--
David Pollen
······@netcom.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"When regard for Truth has been broken down or even slightly
weakened, all things will remain doubtful."
Saint Augustine
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David Pollen (······@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <··········@search01.news.aol.com> ·········@aol.com (RTClarkJr) writes:
: >
: >
: >Does anyone out there have some benchmarks as to which is the fastest
: >common lisp? Using Gabriel benchmarks or something similar?
: >
: >Rob.
: Of course since there are now only two companies in the Professional Lisp
: Business: Franz and Harelquin, you should keep in mind that their products
: may be the only ones that are being continually refined and updated for
: future speed increases . . . So keep this in mind if some other lisp
: system is found to be "faster."
What happened to Lucid?
mike
In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
Organization: SAIC AI Lab, JHU P/T CS Faculty
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 15:34:58 GMT
Lines: 23
In article <················@monaco.cs.brown.edu> ··@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas) writes:
>In article <··········@u.cc.utah.edu>, ········@cadesm33.eng.utah.edu (Michael Callahan) writes:
[...]
>> What happened to Lucid?
>
>Franz bought them a few weeks ago.
I think that this deal has fallen through. The way I heard it was that
Lucid's Lisp business was making money, albeit not much. Their C/C++/Energize
business was losing money fast. The investors who funded the Energize
stuff pulled the plug rather than pour more money in. Unfortunately, since
there was no division financially between the two sides, this sunk the Lisp
side too, even though it was profitable. I don't understand why it is
hard to sell off the Lisp side or operate it independently, but I gather
there is some legal reason for this. As things stand now, they are dead
with nobody picking up their products. I also heard that the Solaris
2.3 ports and CLIM 2.0 non-beta versions were finished, but never shipped.
I could easily have this wrong; I'd like to hear a more accurate version
if somebody knows it. And I gather that some people were still trying to
swing something to keep the Lisp side alive.
- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
:) :) HUMOROUS MODE ON
This is the sneakiest attack on the future of Lisp ever made by the
evil forces of the C/C++ dark side.
HUMOUROS MODE OFF
--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robotics Lab | room: 1220 - tel. #: (212) 998 3370
Courant Institute NYU | e-mail: ·······@cs.nyu.edu
...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
Bertholdt Brecht
·······@mosaic.nyu.edu (Marco Antoniotti) writes:
<I wrote
< [Franz buying Lucid]
< I think that this deal has fallen through. The way I heard it was that
< Lucid's Lisp business was making money, albeit not much. Their C/C++/Energize
< business was losing money fast. The investors who funded the Energize
< stuff pulled the plug rather than pour more money in. Unfortunately, since
< there was no division financially between the two sides, this sunk the Lisp
< side too, even though it was profitable. I don't understand why it is
< hard to sell off the Lisp side or operate it independently, but I gather
< there is some legal reason for this. As things stand now, they are dead
< with nobody picking up their products. I also heard that the Solaris
< 2.3 ports and CLIM 2.0 non-beta versions were finished, but never shipped.
<
< I could easily have this wrong; I'd like to hear a more accurate version
< if somebody knows it. And I gather that some people were still trying to
< swing something to keep the Lisp side alive.
<
<:) :) HUMOROUS MODE ON
<This is the sneakiest attack on the future of Lisp ever made by the
<evil forces of the C/C++ dark side.
<HUMOUROS MODE OFF
If you look at it that way, it gets even worse. I also heard that
they realized that the Energize stuff was pulling them down (JonL
called it "Albatrossergize" :-), and laid off most of their C/C++
folks a month or so from the end. They got their normal severance
pay. But when Lucid couldn't recover, things were so bad that they
just suddenly shut down. The remaining Lispers didn't get severance
pay or even their last paychecks.
Just the way I heard it... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
IS in fact picking them up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>,
Marty Hall <····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> wrote:
>Just the way I heard it... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>IS in fact picking them up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
Something good, imo, is happening.
The ink on the deal is not dry yet so stay tuned. Hopefully an
official press release will be available soon.
-- Chris.
(··@lks.csi.com)
In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
No, but I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't. While neither Franz nor
Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology", both would like
to provide the default upgrade path for Lucid's customer base. Surely
it's just a matter of settling on a price.
-- rar
In <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
>> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
>No, but I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't. While neither Franz nor
>Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology", both would like
>to provide the default upgrade path for Lucid's customer base. Surely
>it's just a matter of settling on a price.
Franz is offering a deal to trade in your Lucid licenses.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson "Isn't this a disgusting spectacle!"
···@panix.com Betty, on _I Love Lucy_
In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
> Franz is offering a deal to trade in your Lucid licenses.
Harlequin is too. However, I expect that Lucid's most valuable asset is
their customer list.
-- rar
In <················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>> Franz is offering a deal to trade in your Lucid licenses.
>Harlequin is too. However, I expect that Lucid's most valuable asset is
>their customer list.
That, and their VMS Lisp. Franz doesn't make one.
Isn't Lucid's Lisp a lot better than Harlequin?
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson "Isn't this a disgusting spectacle!"
···@panix.com Betty, on _I Love Lucy_
In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) asks:
> Isn't Lucid's Lisp a lot better than Harlequin?
Some folks think so. On the other hand, I expect that, for every pair of
Lisps L1 and L2, there is a Lisp programmer P such that, for P's purposes,
L1 is as good as or better than L2.
-- rar
In article <················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) asks:
> Isn't Lucid's Lisp a lot better than Harlequin?
Some folks think so. On the other hand, I expect that, for every pair of
Lisps L1 and L2, there is a Lisp programmer P such that, for P's purposes,
L1 is as good as or better than L2.
"Better" is meaningless without explaining one's criteria and
evidence. Your criteria may differ greatly from others', and the
evidence you've gathered may differ greatly from that others have
collected. If you're merely expressing hearsay, however, I can only
suggest that you get evaluation copies of the alternatives and try
them yourself.
--
Lawrence G. Mayka
AT&T Bell Laboratories
···@ieain.att.com
Standard disclaimer.
In article <················@polaris.ih.att.com> ···@polaris.ih.att.com (Lawrence G. Mayka) writes:
> In article <················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>
> In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) asks:
>
> > Isn't Lucid's Lisp a lot better than Harlequin?
>
> Some folks think so. On the other hand, I expect that, for every pair of
> Lisps L1 and L2, there is a Lisp programmer P such that, for P's purposes,
> L1 is as good as or better than L2.
>
> "Better" is meaningless without explaining one's criteria and
> evidence. Your criteria may differ greatly from others', and the
> evidence you've gathered may differ greatly from that others have
> collected. If you're merely expressing hearsay, however, I can only
> suggest that you get evaluation copies of the alternatives and try
> them yourself.
If my complete agreement with all this couldn't be inferred from what I
wrote, I guess I was too subtle. In particular, I consider the time I
spent evaluating Harlequin very well spent indeed (tho' we haven't traded
any of our Lucid licenses in yet).
-- rar
In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
In <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
>> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
>No, but I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't. While neither Franz nor
>Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology", both would like
>to provide the default upgrade path for Lucid's customer base. Surely
>it's just a matter of settling on a price.
Franz is offering a deal to trade in your Lucid licenses.
I believe Harlequin has advertised a similar "license-swap" deal.
--
Lawrence G. Mayka
AT&T Bell Laboratories
···@ieain.att.com
Standard disclaimer.
In article <··········@panix.com> ···@panix.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>In <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>>In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
>>> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>>> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
>Franz is offering a deal to trade in your Lucid licenses.
^(Hope I got those attributions correct.)
Did I miss something?
I thought there was an announcement a few weeks ago that Franz was aquiring
Lucid. Am I dreaming?
Thanks,
Patrick
In article <···························@ccm.jf.intel.com> ···············@ccm.jf.intel.com (Patrick D. Logan) writes:
> I thought there was an announcement a few weeks ago that Franz was aquiring
> Lucid. Am I dreaming?
No, but the deal fell through.
-- rar
From: Greg Parkinson
Subject: Lisp for VMS (was Re: The fastest CL?
Date:
Message-ID: <34504k$3fd@panix.com>
In <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
>> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
>No, but I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't. While neither Franz nor
>Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology", both would like
>to provide the default upgrade path for Lucid's customer base. Surely
>it's just a matter of settling on a price.
Does anyone know of a Lisp for VMS? As far as I knew, the only
one was made by ::gulp:: Lucid.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson "Isn't this a disgusting spectacle!"
···@panix.com Betty, on _I Love Lucy_
In article <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
>In article <··········@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> ····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall) writes:
>
>> ... I've also heard vague rumors that someone
>> IS in fact picking [Lucid] up, but haven't heard more. Anyone know?
>
>No, but I'd be very surprised if someone doesn't. While neither Franz nor
>Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology",
What is *that* supposed to mean? That their technology sucks?
In article <··········@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> ····@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> In article <·················@birch.csl.sri.com> ···@birch.csl.sri.com (Bob Riemenschneider) writes:
> > ... While neither Franz nor
> >Harlequin cares all that much about Lucid's "technology",
>
> What is *that* supposed to mean? That their technology sucks?
Not at all; for example, I would personally rate their compiler
technology as slightly better than Franz's or Harlequin's. (Your Metrics
May Vary.) It means that Franz and Harlequin already have their own
compilers and supporting toolsets, based on technology that doesn't suck.
Neither is going to throw away what it has and build on Lucid's products
instead.
It's not like the development staff at both places don't already know the
differences between their own software and Lucid's. If they thought
Lucid's technology *added* that much value to their own, they'd have
duplicated it already. Good as Stallman is, I think his efforts for LMI
pretty conclusively demonstrated that Lisp technology is easier to
duplicate than it is to develop in the first place.
(Perhaps the scare quotes around "technology" were misleading. They're
there because I believe talk of "purchasing technology" involves a
category mistake.)
-- rar
>>>>> "Marty" == Marty Hall <····@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu> writes:
Marty> Just the way I heard it... I've also heard vague rumors that someone IS in fact picking them up, but haven't
Marty> heard more. Anyone know?
Rumor of the day has it Harlequin closed the deal for the Lisp business, and will
be opening a office in CA to support Lucid.
In article <···················@wolverine.cs.rochester.edu> ······@cs.rochester.edu (Brad Miller) writes:
> Rumor of the day has it Harlequin closed the deal for the Lisp business, and will
> be opening a office in CA to support Lucid.
Harlequin announced the planned opening of a Palo Alto office at LUV a
couple of weeks ago. (I suggested they get the old Symbolics building on
Page Mill Road, so everyone would know where they are.) If they were sure
then that they were going to close the Lucid deal, they've done a good job
of keeping their mouths shut.
Keep them rumors comin'!
-- rar