Posted Sep 7, 2007 0:40 UTC (Fri) by ncm
In reply to: Taste
Parent article: LinuxConf.eu: Documentation and user-space API design
"I'm sure QPX ran the GC while you were around"
Long experience has taught me to be very distrustful of anything a GC advocate is "sure" of.
Evidently ITA's "mistake" in avoiding GC cycles was to insist on running their application for several years before a Lisp runtime with a tolerable GC was available to them. They certainly were not lax in trying to obtain one: they used Allegro CL at the time I started, and dropped it for CMUCL while I was there. SBCL was under active development. They employed one of the primary CMUCL maintainers. (I think he would be surprised to find his competence disparaged here; he was always admirably forthcoming with me in acknowledging CMUCL's then-current and Lisp's inherent limitations.)
This exchange illustrates well some of the reasons why Lisp hasn't exactly taken the world by storm. Chief among them must be Lisp advocates still unable to understand why not.
But this is all off-topic, and I apologize again to those reading the article to learn about system call interfaces.
to post comments)