* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-28 0:00 Language Implementation Survey Howard R. Stearns
@ 1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Thomas Lindgren
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 1996-03-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Howard R. Stearns wrote:
>
> Here are the survey results. The first two sections give the numbers
> and percentages
...
> Some respondents listed more than one language as being their most
> prefered (even while evaluating the implementation for a single
> langage). Languages described as being favored:
> CL was favored 27 times (31%).
> C++ was favored 13 times (15%).
Your top answer had only 27 responses?
I think this may qualify you for "most comprehensive, yet unscientific
study ever". Congradulations! Someone should call Guiness.
--
T.E.D.
| Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com |
| Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net |
| URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Language Implementation Survey
@ 1996-03-28 0:00 Howard R. Stearns
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Thomas Lindgren
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Howard R. Stearns @ 1996-03-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
Some respondents listed more than one language as being their most
prefered (even while evaluating the implementation for a single
langage). Languages described as being favored:
CL was favored 27 times (31%).
C++ was favored 13 times (15%).
C was favored 13 times (15%).
ADA was favored 9 times (10%).
SCHEME was favored 8 times ( 9%).
SMALLTALK was favored 6 times ( 7%).
PROLOG was favored 6 times ( 7%).
PERL was favored 5 times ( 6%).
PYTHON was favored 5 times ( 6%).
DYLAN was favored 3 times ( 3%).
MERCURY was favored 3 times ( 3%).
JAVA was favored 3 times ( 3%).
MODULA-3 was favored 2 times ( 2%).
EIFFEL was favored 2 times ( 2%).
SML was favored 2 times ( 2%).
PASCAL was favored 2 times ( 2%).
SATHER was favored 2 times ( 2%).
OBERON was favored 1 times ( 1%).
MUMPS was favored 1 times ( 1%).
SISAL was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CLP was favored 1 times ( 1%).
BETA was favored 1 times ( 1%).
PL/I was favored 1 times ( 1%).
HELIX-EXPRESS was favored 1 times ( 1%).
APPLESCRIPT was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CLEAN was favored 1 times ( 1%).
HASKELL was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ASM was favored 1 times ( 1%).
CAML was favored 1 times ( 1%).
XLISP-STAT was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ASSEMBLY was favored 1 times ( 1%).
AMIGA-E was favored 1 times ( 1%).
ICON was favored 1 times ( 1%).
AWK was favored 1 times ( 1%).
SH was favored 1 times ( 1%).
QBASIC was favored 1 times ( 1%).
Most preferred language:
CL received 25 responses (29%).
C++ received 9 responses (10%).
ADA received 7 responses ( 8%).
C received 6 responses ( 7%).
PROLOG received 5 responses ( 6%).
SCHEME received 5 responses ( 6%).
SMALLTALK received 5 responses ( 6%).
PERL received 3 responses ( 3%).
PYTHON received 3 responses ( 3%).
MERCURY received 2 responses ( 2%).
MODULA-3 received 2 responses ( 2%).
SATHER received 2 responses ( 2%).
XLISP-STAT received 1 responses ( 1%).
BETA received 1 responses ( 1%).
AMIGA-E received 1 responses ( 1%).
QBASIC received 1 responses ( 1%).
JAVA received 1 responses ( 1%).
HELIX-EXPRESS received 1 responses ( 1%).
PL/I received 1 responses ( 1%).
SISAL received 1 responses ( 1%).
PASCAL received 1 responses ( 1%).
MUMPS received 1 responses ( 1%).
OBERON received 1 responses ( 1%).
EIFFEL received 1 responses ( 1%).
DYLAN received 1 responses ( 1%).
Results for ALL-LANGUAGES:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 68 69
WINDOWS 43 49
MAC 30 36
AMIGA 6 5
SYMBOLICS 3 3
OS2 3 2
DOS 1 2
VMS 1 2
BEBOX 1 1
ATARI 1 1
CMS 1 1
UNKNOWN 0 0
VAX/VMS 0 1
REAL-TIME 0 1
NT 0 1
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 31%
Speed : 45%
Size of development environment : 30%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 47%
Being called by other languages : 46%
Developement environment : 45%
GUI : 47%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 56 of the responses (64%).
LISP provided 13 of the responses (15%).
PYTHON provided 4 of the responses ( 5%).
MISC provided 3 of the responses ( 3%).
ADA provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
C provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 2%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
SATHER provided 1 of the responses ( 1%).
11% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
30% appeared to be from outside the US.
45% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for CL:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 72 68
WINDOWS 36 44
MAC 40 36
SYMBOLICS 12 12
UNKNOWN 0 0
OS2 4 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 48%
Speed : 28%
Size of development environment : 36%
Application delivery : 60%
Calling other languages : 68%
Being called by other languages : 60%
Developement environment : 24%
GUI : 52%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 11 of the responses (44%).
LISP provided 10 of the responses (40%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 8%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 4%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 4%).
24% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
36% appeared to be from outside the US.
96% 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%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
44% appeared to be from outside the US.
33% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for ADA:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 71 86
WINDOWS 43 57
MAC 29 43
AMIGA 29 29
DOS 14 14
VMS 14 14
VAX/VMS 0 14
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 14%
Speed : 43%
Size of development environment : 14%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 29%
Being called by other languages : 29%
Developement environment : 57%
GUI : 57%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 6 of the responses (86%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses (14%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
14% appeared to be from outside the US.
14% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for C:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 67 83
UNIX 83 67
AMIGA 17 17
NT 0 17
VMS 0 17
MAC 0 17
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 33%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 50%
Application delivery : 33%
Calling other languages : 17%
Being called by other languages : 17%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 33%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (50%).
C provided 1 of the responses (17%).
MISC provided 1 of the responses (17%).
PYTHON provided 1 of the responses (17%).
17% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
17% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PROLOG:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 80 80
WINDOWS 20 40
MAC 20 40
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 40%
Speed : 20%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 40%
Calling other languages : 60%
Being called by other languages : 40%
Developement environment : 40%
GUI : 60%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (60%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses (20%).
PYTHON provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
20% appeared to be from outside the US.
80% 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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 3 of the responses (60%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses (20%).
LISP provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
20% appeared to be from outside the US.
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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 4 of the responses (80%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses (20%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for PERL:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 100 100
WINDOWS 100 67
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 0%
Speed : 33%
Size of development environment : 0%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 33%
Being called by other languages : 33%
Developement environment : 67%
GUI : 0%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
MISC provided 1 of the responses (33%).
C provided 1 of the responses (33%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (33%).
33% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
33% appeared to be from outside the US.
33% 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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
PYTHON provided 2 of the responses (67%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (33%).
33% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
33% appeared to be from outside the US.
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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
MISC provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
LISP provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
50% appeared to be from outside the US.
50% 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 : 50%
Application delivery : 0%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 0%
Developement environment : 50%
GUI : 0%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
SATHER provided 1 of the responses (50%).
UNKNOWN provided 1 of the responses (50%).
50% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
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%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
LISP provided 1 of the responses (100%).
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
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%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
100% 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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for SISAL:
%programming %delivering
MAC 100 100
UNIX 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
100% 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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for MUMPS:
%programming %delivering
WINDOWS 100 100
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 100%
Speed : 0%
Size of development environment : 100%
Application delivery : 100%
Calling other languages : 0%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for OBERON:
%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 : 100%
Being called by other languages : 100%
Developement environment : 100%
GUI : 100%
0% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
100% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% 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% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
0% appeared to be from outside the US.
0% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for ALL-EXCEPT-LISP:
%programming %delivering
UNIX 64 68
WINDOWS 46 52
MAC 23 34
AMIGA 7 7
OS2 4 4
VMS 2 4
DOS 2 4
CMS 2 2
BEBOX 2 2
ATARI 2 2
NT 0 2
VAX/VMS 0 2
REAL-TIME 0 2
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 25%
Speed : 46%
Size of development environment : 25%
Application delivery : 20%
Calling other languages : 37%
Being called by other languages : 41%
Developement environment : 52%
GUI : 43%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 42 of the responses (75%).
PYTHON provided 4 of the responses ( 7%).
MISC provided 3 of the responses ( 5%).
C provided 2 of the responses ( 4%).
SMALLTALK provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
SATHER provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
PROLOG provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
LISP provided 1 of the responses ( 2%).
7% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
29% appeared to be from outside the US.
23% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
Results for all Lisp languages (cl, sheme, xlisp):
%programming %delivering
UNIX 74 71
WINDOWS 35 45
MAC 42 39
SYMBOLICS 10 10
AMIGA 3 0
UNKNOWN 0 0
OS2 3 0
Room for improvement is seen in:
Standards conformance : 42%
Speed : 42%
Size of development environment : 39%
Application delivery : 58%
Calling other languages : 65%
Being called by other languages : 55%
Developement environment : 32%
GUI : 55%
Responses came from the following comp.lang newsgroups:
UNKNOWN provided 14 of the responses (45%).
LISP provided 12 of the responses (39%).
DYLAN provided 2 of the responses ( 6%).
SCHEME provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
ADA provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
C++ provided 1 of the responses ( 3%).
19% of responses appeared to be from educational domains, while
32% appeared to be from outside the US.
84% currently have a Common Lisp compiler.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
@ 1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Scott Leschke @ 1996-03-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
What is CL? Never heard of it unless this is a consistent typo of TCL
which I found strangely absent.
Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com> writes:
>Howard R. Stearns wrote:
>>
>> Here are the survey results. The first two sections give the numbers
>> and percentages
>...
>> Some respondents listed more than one language as being their most
>> prefered (even while evaluating the implementation for a single
>> langage). Languages described as being favored:
>> CL was favored 27 times (31%).
>> C++ was favored 13 times (15%).
>Your top answer had only 27 responses?
>I think this may qualify you for "most comprehensive, yet unscientific
>study ever". Congradulations! Someone should call Guiness.
>--
>T.E.D.
> | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com |
> | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net |
> | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
--
Scott Leschke.........................email: leschkes@cig.mot.com
Motorola, Inc............................ph: 847-632-2786
1501 W Shure Drive......................fax: 847-632-3145
Arlington Heights, IL 60004......mailstop: 1301
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
@ 1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
` (2 more replies)
1996-03-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Trimble @ 1996-03-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Scott Leschke wrote:
>
> What is CL? Never heard of it unless this is a consistent typo
> of TCL which I found strangely absent.
It stands for Common Lisp ... clearly the most preferred language in
the world (NOT!).
I've never seen a survey quite this skewed towards AI. Common Lisp
tops C++ and C? Prolog beating Perl and Python AND Smalltalk? Right.
I have yet to meet a second person who uses Prolog daily (the first was
an AI professor a while ago).
- Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
@ 1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-04-01 0:00 ` M. Alan Newman
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Richard Pitre @ 1996-03-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <315D7800.75F5@panix.com> Chris Trimble <trimble@panix.com> writes:
> Scott Leschke wrote:
> >
> > What is CL? Never heard of it unless this is a consistent typo
> > of TCL which I found strangely absent.
>
> It stands for Common Lisp ... clearly the most preferred language in
> the world (NOT!).
>
> I've never seen a survey quite this skewed towards AI. Common Lisp
> tops C++ and C? Prolog beating Perl and Python AND Smalltalk? Right.
> I have yet to meet a second person who uses Prolog daily (the first was
> an AI professor a while ago).
>
> - Chris
Given the results I'm sure that there is one incredibly funny story
behind that survey. As far as Lisp and Prolog go I would say
stick around for a few decades. I believe that declarative languages
will have their day. Until then we're gonna try to encode
procedures that take us between every
possible pair of points in the conceptual universe. Someday there may be
an historical perspective on our time that consists mostly of laughter.
richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
@ 1996-03-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-03-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Scott asks
"What is CL? Never heard of it unless this is a consistent typo of TCL"
Common Lisp I presume (now of course if you think that survey was
somehow representative, I have a bridge near by to sell :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-28 0:00 Language Implementation Survey Howard R. Stearns
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
@ 1996-04-01 0:00 ` Thomas Lindgren
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lindgren @ 1996-04-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <315D7800.75F5@panix.com> Chris Trimble <trimble@panix.com> writes:
I have yet to meet a second person who uses Prolog daily (the first was
an AI professor a while ago).
That makes me number two, I guess :-)
There are several smallish Prolog vendors, so apparently someone is
using it. The applications one hears about are usually natural language
processing, expert systems and constraint solving programs. There was
a paper about how Prolog was used to query the hordes of databases of
Boeing at ILPS'95 (databases distributed all across the company and so
on, of course).
Anyway, that doesn't mean that guy's survey was very scientific.
Self-selected population to be measured and all that.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University
thomasl@csd.uu.se, lindgren@sics.se
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/
Copyright Thomas Lindgren, 1996. Distribution on Microsoft Network prohibited.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
@ 1996-04-01 0:00 ` M. Alan Newman
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: M. Alan Newman @ 1996-04-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <315D7800.75F5@panix.com>, trimble@panix.com wrote:
> I've never seen a survey quite this skewed towards AI. Common Lisp
> tops C++ and C? Prolog beating Perl and Python AND Smalltalk? Right.
> I have yet to meet a second person who uses Prolog daily (the first was
> an AI professor a while ago).
I know many people who use Prolog daily in the commercial world, including
myself and my team, and other teams, and other companies around the
world. When I attend logic programming and related conferences, I meet
hundreds of others, mostly in the academic world.
I have little doubt the situation is similar regarding Perl, Python,
Smalltalk, etc. If you want to know how much a language is used, you
might want to examine, for example, the number and financial health of the
compiler vendors for that language. If you are trying to satisfy your
ego, try a biased survey.
--
M. Alan Newman (P20582@email.mot.com)
Motorola, Scottsdale, Arizona
Speaking for myself.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
@ 1996-04-02 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Trimble @ 1996-04-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To all the Prolog aficionados who have sent me mail, flamed me,
spraypainted my locker and called me in the middle of the night....
Of course I didn't mean that Prolog is a sucky language or that no one
uses it. All I said was that *I've* only known one person who has used
it. Clearly that's a survey as biased as the one posted, but, like the
poster of that survey, I never claimed it was globally applicable :-)
So, whatever language you enjoy, keep enjoying it.... it's not like it
negatively effects my life or anyone else's. :-)
- Chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Language Implementation Survey
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-04-01 0:00 ` M. Alan Newman
@ 1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ron Stodden @ 1996-04-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <315D7800.75F5@panix.com> on Sat, 30 Mar 1996 13:05:52 -0500,
Chris Trimble <trimble@panix.com> said:>
> I have yet to meet a second person who uses Prolog daily (the first
was an AI professor a while ago).
Then meet me, and I'm not an AI professor, but do have 33 years of
professional financial, banking, commercial and industrial computing in
three countries. And lots of others. PDC Prolog is my computing
companion. PDC claims on their www page to have 300,000
installations. They privately tell me that includes most of the
Fortune 500 (who, psst! seeing its value, claim it as their most potent
secret competitive weapon).
Prolog is very much alive.
Ron. rmstodd@ibm.net
Melbourne, Australia.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-04-02 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1996-03-28 0:00 Language Implementation Survey Howard R. Stearns
1996-03-28 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1996-03-29 0:00 ` Scott Leschke
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-30 0:00 ` Richard Pitre
1996-04-01 0:00 ` M. Alan Newman
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Ron Stodden
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Chris Trimble
1996-03-31 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Thomas Lindgren
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox