Live data from Hacker News

Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

danweinreb.org

41–50 of 64 posts

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#41
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a bit harsh - I actually moved from mostly doing Common Lisp development (on DEC Alpha workstations) to Java development in early '95 and I really liked Java back then - I was as passionate about it as people are today about Go/CoffeeScript/Haskell. Java, at least at the start, really was something fresh and good. Sure it became a horrible bloated mess - but isn't that the doom that faces all succesful…

Same here, I remember how fresh it felt by bringing GC to the masses and providing a more consistent experience across platforms than C or C++ were capable of, with their compiler specific behaviours, extensions and catching up with the ongoing standardization efforts.

Sorry but it was Visual Basic that brought GC to the masses.

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#42
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - the world is dominated by stuff that works and solves real problems . It doesn't care for how much smarter than all those mediocre idiots you think you are. It offers lots of opportunities for very smart people who mistake their mental masturbation for unstoppable genius to be very, very stupid.

Symbolics stuff not just worked, it worked remarkably well on the very modest hardware and solved real word problems. For an example of unimaginable by "modern standards" quality , go ahead and take a look at the Common Lisp documentation produced by Symbolics (the art of writing, "motorcycle maintenance" kind of clarity and conscience) which is buried somewhere inside bitsavers and take a look at the sources of Open…

This comment is to programming language analysis what Pitchfork reviews are to music analysis- lots of tribalism, lots of emotion, lots of apparently non-self-aware hyperbole, and entertaining as long as what the reader is looking for is entertainment and not actual analysis of anything. If your goal as a programmer is simply to have fun, then carry on, but if your goal is to have a handle on whatever scraps of objective truth are out there (or even just to solve concrete problems) then you may want to devote at least some tiny part of your time to trying to see things from other people's perspectives. Those other people may not necessarily be correct about anything, but when it comes to engineering even the faintest wisp of objective truth is worth a lot more than strongly expressed emotions, no matter how poetic it may seem to you.

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#43

I worked in an expert systems company in the 80s (one mentioned in the Phillips thesis referenced in the danweinreb article). Take all this with a dose of IIRC. As part of out work, we evaluated and benchmarked Xerox Interlisp machines, Symbolics systems, VAXen, later Gold Hill etc. to find a cost-effective delivery platform. We even eventually funded the development of a delivery-focused subset of Common Lisp. One a…

You did benchmarking so you may be able to confirm/deny this: I've heard that Lisp machines went out of favor because Lisp just ran faster on a VAX. Was this the case?

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#44
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in the Java language is done so as to prevent clueless people from messing up too much. It is an useful goal, but it impairs creativity and productivity. Complex concepts are either not implemented or forbidden outright. This is even in contrast to its closest competitor, which is C#. The latter has evolved a lot since its creation, while in the Java world lambdas are the hot new thing. But hey, you can hi…

For corporations, consistant work is often more desirable than exceptional work. Amassing thousands of lines of code that only exceptional programmers can use, understand and modify is a liability, not an asset, no matter how efficient it is.

Which is a quality of a fundamentally broken organizational system that measures power in (and therefore optimizes for) number of people controlled, as well as the government-directed economy that underwrites it.

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#45
post #38
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running Open Genera in a VM is quite an eye-opening experience. Such a very different vision of computing and what is possible.

Yes, this is why I sayed in another thread here in HN that UNIX made the industry do a left turn. Lisp Machines I only know through videos and old papers. But I do have experience with Smalltalk during my CS degree, before Java was a thing. Smalltalk is by no means Lisp, but shares a few ideas. If those systems had become mainstream, computing would probably be like Bret Victor discusses on his "Future of Programming…

At the European Common Lisp Meeting later this year in Berlin/Germany I'm probably demoing a real hardware Symbolics Lisp Machine and its OS...

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#46
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Symbolics stuff not just worked, it worked remarkably well on the very modest hardware and solved real word problems. For an example of unimaginable by "modern standards" quality , go ahead and take a look at the Common Lisp documentation produced by Symbolics (the art of writing, "motorcycle maintenance" kind of clarity and conscience) which is buried somewhere inside bitsavers and take a look at the sources of Open…

Yeah, I guess you'll keep telling yourself that because it makes you happy and remain unable to comprehend just how wrong you are...

Neither you nor OP are wrong. It's possible, and common, to have practical tools that suck hard.

It's also true that the more people use a tool (and for longer time), the more ways it will be found to suck (and Lisp has been around for quite a while (and used by quite a few people too (probably used by less people than Java) and (indeed) it managed to spawn quite a few heated reactions (to it's salient characteristics)))

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#47
post #43

I worked in an expert systems company in the 80s (one mentioned in the Phillips thesis referenced in the danweinreb article). Take all this with a dose of IIRC. As part of out work, we evaluated and benchmarked Xerox Interlisp machines, Symbolics systems, VAXen, later Gold Hill etc. to find a cost-effective delivery platform. We even eventually funded the development of a delivery-focused subset of Common Lisp. One a…

You did benchmarking so you may be able to confirm/deny this: I've heard that Lisp machines went out of favor because Lisp just ran faster on a VAX. Was this the case?

Besides horrible management---echoing Zigurd, a friend and contemporary, I was at one point reliably told that manufacturing, R&D and marketing were paying no attention to each other, such that manufacturing had built a factory that couldn't make the latest hardware R&D had developed, which was done completely independently of what marketing thought was needed---they were killed by non-recurring engineering (NRE) costs.

Basically they couldn't amortize the NRE for their custom hardware and later most especially chips (from memory, first, a chipset that spread the CPU across several chips, rather like the one Western Digital did that among other things enabled the LSI-11, then of course an all in one chip) across the huge number of units that Intel and Motorola sold. They also canceled their RISC rethink of their basic low level architecture on the day it was supposed to tape out; don't know if it had a low enough gate count to be like the first SPARC processor, which was implemented on 2 20,000 gate arrays, one for the CPU and one for the floating point unit (gate arrays are all alike until a few layers of metal are put on top).

So soon enough you could run a full Common Lisp, almost certainly without as much run-time error checking, faster on cheap commodity hardware than on a Lisp Machine.

Something like that seems to have happened to Azul Systems, which apparently isn't developing any new hardware, but is selling their version of the HotSpot JVM to run on x86_64 hardware. A prior generation of their pauseless GC (vs. 1 second per GiB, a big deal if your heap is 100s of GiB) required a software write or read barrier that cost ~20% of performance (all this from memory). It's likely that soon enough, even if it perhaps ran slower than their custom hardware, it was a lot cheaper to run it on commodity Intel/AMD hardware.

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#48
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - the world is dominated by stuff that works and solves real problems . It doesn't care for how much smarter than all those mediocre idiots you think you are. It offers lots of opportunities for very smart people who mistake their mental masturbation for unstoppable genius to be very, very stupid.

Symbolics stuff not just worked, it worked remarkably well on the very modest hardware and solved real word problems. For an example of unimaginable by "modern standards" quality , go ahead and take a look at the Common Lisp documentation produced by Symbolics (the art of writing, "motorcycle maintenance" kind of clarity and conscience) which is buried somewhere inside bitsavers and take a look at the sources of Open…

If you build a better programming language, and the world does not beat a path to your door (even after 50 years), that's because the world is too stupid to appreciate the genius of your beautiful language? Right. Grow up, kid.

Lisp has its virtues, but the Lisp evangelists/cheerleaders/fanboys would be more effective at converting the rest of us if they quit assuming that anyone who disagreed with them was too stupid to see the obvious virtues of their wonderful language.

And don't say that you don't care whether others like your language. You care whether others like it enough for businesses like Symbolics to survive, so that you don't have to visit bitsavers to see this stuff that you love so much.

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#49
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - the world is dominated by stuff that works and solves real problems . It doesn't care for how much smarter than all those mediocre idiots you think you are. It offers lots of opportunities for very smart people who mistake their mental masturbation for unstoppable genius to be very, very stupid.

Symbolics stuff not just worked, it worked remarkably well on the very modest hardware and solved real word problems. For an example of unimaginable by "modern standards" quality , go ahead and take a look at the Common Lisp documentation produced by Symbolics (the art of writing, "motorcycle maintenance" kind of clarity and conscience) which is buried somewhere inside bitsavers and take a look at the sources of Open…

the whole OS, which was available of dynamic modification and extension by the programmer,

Sounds like a nightmare, writing code for an OS where every chucklehead with a keyboard has modified it just because they can.

Rather sounds like the curse of the gifted[1] writ large. Sure it was cooler and had neat features but couldn't reliably deliver over the long term.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219872

Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)

#50
post #45
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is why I sayed in another thread here in HN that UNIX made the industry do a left turn. Lisp Machines I only know through videos and old papers. But I do have experience with Smalltalk during my CS degree, before Java was a thing. Smalltalk is by no means Lisp, but shares a few ideas. If those systems had become mainstream, computing would probably be like Bret Victor discusses on his "Future of Programming…

At the European Common Lisp Meeting later this year in Berlin/Germany I'm probably demoing a real hardware Symbolics Lisp Machine and its OS...

Sounds tempting, as I live in Germany. Thanks for the hint.
Post reply on HN