········@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:
>
> Randy Crawford <········@mrj.com> writes:
>
> >·····@Virginia.EDU wrote:
> >>
> >> [1] Re: "Why lisp failed in the marketplace"
>
...
>
> >And those who believed to the contrary, like Lucid and Symbolics, are
> >dead, dead, dead.
>
> Lucid is dead because their C++ projects failed and wasted so much
> money that the Lisp business (which was profitable) couldn't save
> them.
>
This has been pointed out many times. I like to add that the demise
of Lucid because of their C++ Energize failings is the effect of the
most contrived strategy that the evil forces of the C/C++ camp have
devised to attack our beloved parenthesis :) :) :)
Jokes apart, the story with Lucid and C++ IMHO shows that their
business model (sell a big programming environment for tons of bucks)
was not very sound in the given C/C++ market at that time. I would go
even further and point out that this is a legacy of the whole AI/Lisp
business practices of the 80's and IMHO the single main hinderance to
the spreading of Lisp and related software systems.
Of course, whether a radical change in marketing policies would now
change the situation is still to be debated.
--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
===============================================================================