BIG successes of Lisp (was ...)

[Andrew Dalke]

E.N. Fan:
> Well, for a start Orbitz could never have been realistically coded
> with Python.

Is your word "realistically" based on hardware limitations or language
limitations?  That is, is it a limitation of the language or of
the implementation?  Suppose there was a type inferencing Python
implementation with the ability to generate native assembly -- would
it be then be realistic?  Suppose we wait 5 years (so that hardware
is less of a concern).  Would it be realistic then?

Or is it based on social aspects as well?  For example, the backers
of the project needed some certainty that it could be done, giving
a good reason to use proven technology over relative newcomers.

> The fact that it could be programmed in Lisp is a testament to the
> greater power and flexibility of Lisp. No amount of arguing could
> speak louder than a proof like that.

What do Travelocity, Expedia, and the other on-line travel systems
use?  If it's anything drastically different than a Lisp then your argument
also suggests that other languages (C++?  COBOL?, or combinations
like PHP + an Oracle cartridge written in C?) have equal power and
flexibility.

                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com