From: ··················@hotmail.com
Subject: Is  comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1119003874.829738.105480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Hi everybody
My company is doing some research regarding using
alternative languages (Ocaml, Python & Lisp ) for
rapid-prototyping and  my job is to check on Lisp.
As i have some questions regarding OOP in Lisp could
anybody advise should i post it in comp.lang.clos,
right group by its name ,though looks weird to me now,
or here in comp.lang,lisp ?
thanks
Althea
From: ·············@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Is comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1119005888.786110.108840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
If your corp is really interested investing in none-C family language
you can win easily with Lisp .
Just told  your division vice-president that Lisp has many commercial
implementations ,some even  providing unlimited phone support , and
responses within few hours.
Managers just love that kind of staff .
I'm not saying (Ocaml or Python are bad), never actually done any
coding
in none of them , just stress what Lisp advantage is.
For the managers of course.

A.J.
From: ···············@lycos.com
Subject: Re: Is comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1119008276.211825.16750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
If your corp is really interested investing in none-C family language
you can win easily with Lisp .
Just told  your division vice-president that Lisp has many commercial
>implementations ,some even  providing unlimited phone support , and
>responses within few hours.
>Managers just love that kind of staff .
>I'm not saying (Ocaml or Python are bad), never actually done any
>coding
>in none of them , just stress what Lisp advantage is.
>For the managers of course.



Yes but Python has more famigliar syntax to most of the coders
and don't forgeth number of Python programmers and libraries.
It might hurt it because it's interpreted .

Ocaml, hm  i would like to see your report about it.
From: ··················@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Is comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1119009366.869592.83400@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
And don't forgeth PythonWorks, Wingware,BlackAdder &
ActiveState all of them commercial .
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Is comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <3hi2viFh1psbU1@individual.net>
···············@lycos.com wrote:
> Yes but Python has more famigliar syntax to most of the coders
> and don't forgeth number of Python programmers and libraries.
> It might hurt it because it's interpreted .

Don't forget the numbers of C and Java coders, and the more 
familiar syntax.

And maybe someone should mention that Lisp isn't dog slow ;)

-- 
Don't let school interfere with your education. -- Mark Twain
From: ·············@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Is comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <1119347420.483814.160240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
Be glad they didn't adopt Visual Basic .
Ooops Visual Basic .Net.
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Is  comp.lang.clos operational ?
Date: 
Message-ID: <ull59z2oy.fsf@agharta.de>
On 17 Jun 2005 03:24:34 -0700, ···················@hotmail.com" <··················@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My company is doing some research regarding using alternative
> languages (Ocaml, Python & Lisp ) for rapid-prototyping and my job
> is to check on Lisp.  As i have some questions regarding OOP in Lisp
> could anybody advise should i post it in comp.lang.clos, right group
> by its name ,though looks weird to me now, or here in comp.lang,lisp
> ?

Here.

Cheers,
Edi.

-- 

Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.

Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
comp.lang.lisp / 2005 / jun