We at Elwood Corporation have been performing language implementation
research and are now seeking input from programmers.
Here are the results we have received so far from our recent survey.
They are listed below, after the survey itself.
If you have not responded yet, (we've added a few newsgroups) please
answer the five questions below
and mail to ········@ix.netcom.com. Your answers will help guide our
development efforts.
---------------- survey ----------------
Please mark an x to the left of all yes answers:
1. What platform do you do your programming on?
A. Unix (including Unix on PC)
B. Mac
C. PC/Windows
D. other. please specify:
2. What platform do your final applications run on?
A. Unix
B. Mac
C. PC/Windows
D. other. please specify:
3. Do you have a Common Lisp compiler?
4. What is your preferred programming language?
Please specify:
5. In the implementation of that language which you use most,
where do you think there is significant opportunity for
improvement:
A. Standards conformance (ANSI, etc.)
B. Speed
C. Size (disk/memory taken by programming environment)
D. Application delivery (size, req'rd files, licenses...)
E. Ability to use programs from other languages
a. C (Mark an x to the left of the desired language.)
b. C++
c. Java
d. other. please specify:
F. Ability to call your programs from other languages
a. C
b. C++
c. Java
d. other. please specify:
G. Program development support (CASE, editors, etc)
H. Graphical User Interface toolkit
vendor/product (optional):
Thank you! Comments?
---------------- end survey ----------------
Results after the first are listed alphabetically based on the
language that respondents cited as there preferred language.
Remember, the "room for improvement" issue refers to implementations
of the language, not features of the language itself.
Results for ALL-LANGUAGES:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 65 67
WINDOWS 43 49
MAC 33 37
AMIGA 6 4
SYMBOLICS 4 4
OS2 3 3
DOS 1 3
VMS 1 3
BEBOX 1 1
ATARI 1 1
CMS 1 1
VAX/VMS 0 1
REAL-TIME 0 1
NT 0 1
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 29%
Speed : 49%
Size of development environment : 32%
Application delivery : 35%
Calling other languages : 46%
Being called by other languages : 44%
Developement environment : 40%
GUI : 46%
43% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for ADA:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 60 80
WINDOWS 40 60
MAC 40 60
DOS 20 20
AMIGA 20 20
VMS 20 20
VAX/VMS 0 20
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 20%
Speed : 60%
Size of development environment : 20%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 40%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 40%
GUI : 60%
20% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for AMIGA-E:
%programming %delivering
AMIGA 100 100
UNIX 0 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for BETA:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 100%
100% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for C:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 75 75
UNIX 75 50
AMIGA 25 25
NT 0 25
VMS 0 25
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 25%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 50%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 25%
GUI : 25%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for C++:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 67 67
WINDOWS 56 56
MAC 22 33
BEBOX 11 11
ATARI 11 11
REAL-TIME 0 11
DOS 0 11
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 44%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 11%
Application delivery : 22%
Calling other languages : 56%
Being called by other languages : 78%
Developement environment : 67%
GUI : 22%
33% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for Common Lisp:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 75 70
MAC 45 40
WINDOWS 35 45
SYMBOLICS 15 15
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 45%
Speed : 30%
Size of development environment : 40%
Application delivery : 60%
Calling other languages : 65%
Being called by other languages : 60%
Developement environment : 20%
GUI : 50%
100% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for DYLAN:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for EIFFEL:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for HELIX-EXPRESS:
%programming %delivering
CMS 100 100
WINDOWS 100 100
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 100%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for JAVA:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MERCURY:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 50%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MODULA-3:
%programming %delivering
OS2 50 50
MAC 50 50
UNIX 50 50
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 50%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 50%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 50%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 50%
50% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PASCAL:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PERL:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 100 50
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 50%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 50%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PL/I:
%programming %delivering
OS2 100 100
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PROLOG:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 75 75
WINDOWS 25 25
MAC 25 25
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 50%
Speed : 25%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 50%
Calling other languages : 50%
Being called by other languages : 25%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 75%
75% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PYTHON:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 33 67
MAC 0 67
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 33%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 33%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 67%
Being called by other languages : 67%
Developement environment : 33%
GUI : 67%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for QBASIC:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 0%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SATHER:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 0%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SCHEME:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 40 60
MAC 40 40
AMIGA 20 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 40%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 60%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 60%
GUI : 60%
40% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SMALLTALK:
%programming %delivering
MAC 60 60
WINDOWS 60 60
UNIX 40 60
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 40%
Size of development environment : 60%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 20%
GUI : 40%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for XLISP-STAT:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 100%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 100%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
In article <·················@ix.netcom.com>,
"Howard R. Stearns" <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>We at Elwood Corporation have been performing language implementation
>research and are now seeking input from programmers.
>
>Here are the results we have received so far from our recent survey.
>They are listed below, after the survey itself.
[snipped]
One thing about the results of this, it would make them more meaningful
if for each language the sample size was shown, so we can get some idea
of the significance of the results (Although some of them are pretty
obvious unless there is a _lot_ of agreement on what needs improving for
some of them).
Roy Ward
···@earthlight.co.nz (Roy Ward) wrote:
>In article <·················@ix.netcom.com>,
>"Howard R. Stearns" <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>We at Elwood Corporation have been performing language implementation
>>research and are now seeking input from programmers.
>>
>>Here are the results we have received so far from our recent survey.
>>They are listed below, after the survey itself.
>
>[snipped]
>
>One thing about the results of this, it would make them more meaningful
>if for each language the sample size was shown, so we can get some idea
>of the significance of the results (Although some of them are pretty
>obvious unless there is a _lot_ of agreement on what needs improving for
>some of them).
>
>Roy Ward
>
The "results so far" were posted mostly to incite more people to respond. Thus
the sample size for each language was deliberately left off. When responses
stop trickeling in, I'll post the complete results, including sample size for
each language.
By the way, there WAS a lot of agreement amongst some users.
From: ········@charm.net
Subject: Re: Future of Lisp? (survey and results)
Date:
Message-ID: <4jcqcj$ug@canton.charm.net>
In <··········@cloner4.netcom.com>, "Howard R. Stearns" <········@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>···@earthlight.co.nz (Roy Ward) wrote:
>>In article <·················@ix.netcom.com>,
>>"Howard R. Stearns" <········@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>We at Elwood Corporation have been performing language implementation
>>>research and are now seeking input from programmers.
>>>
>>>Here are the results we have received so far from our recent survey.
>>>They are listed below, after the survey itself.
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>One thing about the results of this, it would make them more meaningful
>>if for each language the sample size was shown, so we can get some idea
>>of the significance of the results (Although some of them are pretty
>>obvious unless there is a _lot_ of agreement on what needs improving for
>>some of them).
>>
>>Roy Ward
>>
>
>The "results so far" were posted mostly to incite more people to respond. Thus
>the sample size for each language was deliberately left off. When responses
>stop trickeling in, I'll post the complete results, including sample size for
>each language.
>
>By the way, there WAS a lot of agreement amongst some users.
>
All:
Could someone please re-post the results of this survey?
Thanks.
-Kevin
From: Bj�rn Helgason
Subject: Re: Future of Lisp? (survey and results)
Date:
Message-ID: <315F8C14.25BB@simi.is>
Howard R. Stearns wrote:
>
> Here are the survey results. The first two sections give the numbers and percentages
> for the languages respondents cited as their "most preferred." This is followed by
> detailed results for:
> - all languages
> - each language cited as most preferred, in order of popularity
> - a combination of all Lisp languaes
> - a combination of all languages except Lisp.
>
Judging from the number of responses you got on your survey then
the future does not seem too rosy.
I am inclined to believe that it tells more about the survey
than the future of Lisp.
--
/Gosi , ·······@simi.is
http://www2.simi.is/~gosi
http://www.jsoftware.com
Bj�rn Helgason wrote:
>
> Howard R. Stearns wrote:
> >
> > Here are the survey results. The first two sections give the numbers and percentages
> > for the languages respondents cited as their "most preferred." This is followed by
> > detailed results for:
> > - all languages
> > - each language cited as most preferred, in order of popularity
> > - a combination of all Lisp languaes
> > - a combination of all languages except Lisp.
> >
>
> Judging from the number of responses you got on your survey then
> the future does not seem too rosy.
>
Actually, 86 responses (from various newsgroups) is not bad. Far more
people read the newsgroups than responded. The interesting thing is
that a high percentage of people who did respond use Lisp. The
conclusion is that of people who care about the implementation of their
favorite language, a fair number of them use Lisp.
> I am inclined to believe that it tells more about the survey
> than the future of Lisp.
I'm not sure what you mean? Could you elaborate? Maybe I should clarify
what I meant by the "Future of Lisp" title for the survey posting.
There has been some papers and discussion about language
implementations, Lisp and otherwise, which discuss what is wrong with
existing implementations and where things should be headed. The "room
for improvement" questions addressed these issues. The purpose of the
survey (for me) was to see if users felt things should be headed in the
same direction as the pundits say.
The conclusion I draw is that Lisp users agree with, for example,
Gabriel ("Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big") in feeling that
implementations should provide better application delivery and
inter-language functionality. They also site the need for better
standards conformance.
Users of other languages tend to agree with concerns about application
delivery and inter-language functionality.
> --
> /Gosi , ·······@simi.is
> http://www2.simi.is/~gosi
> http://www.jsoftware.com
In article <·················@ix.netcom.com>
········@ix.netcom.com "Howard R. Stearns" writes:
> The conclusion I draw is that Lisp users agree with, for example,
> Gabriel ("Good News, Bad News, How to Win Big") in feeling that
> implementations should provide better application delivery and
> inter-language functionality. They also site the need for better
> standards conformance.
I've given up on using Lisp for application delivery, using commercial
implementations. None of them address the problems I deal with when
I code, like giving small images. However, I'm not worried by this,
as Lisp is not limited to Common Lisp and Scheme.
Anyway, for commercial work, I'm considering a move to Prolog, where
there can be a greater distinction between development and runtime.
Dylan also looks very attractive.
> Users of other languages tend to agree with concerns about application
> delivery and inter-language functionality.
I'm writing a simple "Lisp" to C compiler, for a very small pure
functional Lisp. I dunno if it'll ever be completed, but it's very
satisfying to try. It might even have some useful applications,
because altho the resulting code won't be very efficient (coz I'm
not interested in _that_), it'll be easy to write with, and hopfully
a lot of fun, too.
Plus, I can do it _because I can_. Nobody else has created the kind
of Lisp I'd like to use, so I may as well do it myself. However, this
will probably mean that nobody else will want to use it! ;)
Another factor is the price. There are commercial Prolog systems that
appear to meet my requirements, while there are _no_ commercial Lisps
that can do this, but this might be irrelevant if I can't afford a
system will do the job. Luckily, there are such systems, I believe,
and their prices are certainly within my budget.
Sadly, they're not Lisp systems. So it goes.
--
<URL:http://www.enrapture.com/cybes/> "You can never browse enough."
From: Bj�rn Helgason
Subject: Re: Future of Lisp? (survey and results)
Date:
Message-ID: <31678603.57AD@simi.is>
Howard R. Stearns wrote:
> > I am inclined to believe that it tells more about the survey
> > than the future of Lisp.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean? Could you elaborate?
86 people answering is not a lot of people.
I am not sure how you get many people to answer in a survey on the
internet.
Surveys are always difficult to perform.
I do not know about yours. I did not see it until I saw the results.
I did not intend to offend you or your survey.
Reading it back it could obviously sound like I was doing that.
I merely wanted to point out that 86 people from all the people
who must have seen your survey is not a lot.
Incidentally about surveys then in the new Exchange Server from
Microsoft there is a sample form for creating surveys.
It is quite interesting. Someone getting the survey can answer the
survey once and only once which is quite interesting. I have not
seen that in a computer survey before.
If that catches on the quality of surveys in general may increase.
--
/Gosi , ·······@simi.is
http://www2.simi.is/~gosi
http://www.jsoftware.com