In article <··············@iloginc.ilog.com> Harley Davis <·····@iloginc.ilog.com> writes:
From: Harley Davis <·····@iloginc.ilog.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Date: 09 Jul 1997 17:54:52 -0700
Organization: Ilog Inc., Mtn. View, CA
Path: agate!howland.erols.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!enews.sgi.com!news.via.net!not-for-mail
Lines: 32
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.2.25/XEmacs 19.14
Xref: agate comp.lang.lisp:29271 comp.lang.scheme:22227
···@gubbishwildcard.demon.co.uk (Martin Rodgers) writes:
> With a mighty <···················@17.127.19.193>,
> ··@wetware.com uttered these wise words...
>
>
> I'm sure they will, even if it's only DylanWorks. Apparently, ILOG
> Talk could do it, but the ILOG website seems no longer to have a page
> for it.
Correct, Ilog Talk generates both DLLs and EXEs, as well as
integrating automatically with C and C++ DLLs. It's not very hard to
generate DLLs once the proper language infrastructure is in place.
(Automatically generating FFI interfaces to C/C++ is hard, though.)
However, the fact is that the market for such a Lisp is not that big,
certainly not worth the investment that would be necessary to fully
support it, and Ilog is trying to be a big company (pretty
successfully), so we stopped selling it. The good news is that we are
likely to give it away instead, although with much reduced support.
A good reason for Ilog Talk demise is that it was just... Ilog Talk.
AFAIK, it was not Scheme and it was not Common Lisp. Had it been
Common Lisp Ilog would be probably still out there competing with
Franz and Harlequin. I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking
along these lines.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti
==============================================================================
California Path Program - UC Berkeley
Richmond Field Station
tel. +1 - 510 - 231 9472
With a mighty <···············@infiniti.PATH.Berkeley.EDU>,
·······@infiniti.PATH.Berkeley.EDU uttered these wise words...
> A good reason for Ilog Talk demise is that it was just... Ilog Talk.
> AFAIK, it was not Scheme and it was not Common Lisp. Had it been
> Common Lisp Ilog would be probably still out there competing with
> Franz and Harlequin. I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking
> along these lines.
Any Lisp has to better than no Lisp. You may be right about the value
of conforming to Common Lisp. It makes the market for a Lisp larger,
and from the sound of it, ILOG Talk could use a larger market.
It's also possible that the high price had something to do with it.
I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking along these lines.
--
<URL:http://www.wildcard.demon.co.uk/> You can never browse enough
Please note: my email address is gubbish
Will write Lisp code for food
I dunno, I took a good look at ILOG Talk and it looked like
lisp to me. I have been wanting a good excuse to pay for it
for a while, so the prospect of being able to get it for free
sounds great.
>A good reason for Ilog Talk demise is that it was just... Ilog Talk.
>AFAIK, it was not Scheme and it was not Common Lisp. Had it been
>Common Lisp Ilog would be probably still out there competing with
>Franz and Harlequin. I might be wrong, but I can't help thinking
>along these lines.
>
>Cheers
>--
>Marco Antoniotti
>===========================================================================
===
>California Path Program - UC Berkeley
>Richmond Field Station
>tel. +1 - 510 - 231 9472
>