Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:45:15 02/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 07:08:53, Steven Edwards wrote: >On February 17, 2004 at 19:33:52, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Let's summarize the problems of it >> - too slow >> - too many functions >> - difficult to read code thanks to the ((()))(())(()))(( >> - really slow >> - even slower >> - dead slow >> - slow to program complex applications in too by the way > >There's a nifty and rather complex commercial program called AutoCAD that's been >around for close to two decades. I've used it professionally and have written >plug-in applications for it. It is fast, and even on the hardware of the mid >1980s it chugged along at a decent pace. > >AutoCAD is written almost entirely in Lisp and it made a bunch of cash for its >authors. Its existence easily disproves all of your above stated "facts". > >Could AutoCAD been even faster if it were written in x86 assembler? Sure. But >then its resulting complexity and cost likely would have meant that such an >effort would never have been started. > >How many other similar application topics are there? How about a chess program >that works at a symbolic high level instead of as a traditional A/B iterative >searcher? This is like saying that 1 ant which drinks whiskey proofs that all ants drink whisky. Sometimes out of hand grown student projects get commercial and then get sold and of course only in that specific language you go further. Nothing mysterious about it. Several quickbasic products springs to mind. The exception doesn't proof the general rule though.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.