Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!tgd From: tgd@orstcs.UUCP (tgd) Newsgroups: net.ai Subject: Re: Any data on programmer productivity Message-ID: <14100005@orstcs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 12:59:00 EST Article-I.D.: orstcs.14100005 Posted: Wed Nov 6 12:59:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 06:49:17 EST References: <526@ihwpt.UUCP> Organization: Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR Lines: 32 Nf-ID: #R:ihwpt:-52600:orstcs:14100005:000:1997 Nf-From: orstcs!tgd Nov 6 09:59:00 1985 The discussion thus far has centered on the raw speed of lisp machines versus time-shared machines. It was my impression that the original question referred more to the programming environment. Lisp machines generally have a much better integrated programming environment than main frames. I don't have any hard evidence concerning the relative productivity of programmers on mainframes and in dedicated programming environments, but I can supply some anectodal evidence comparing the Interlisp-D environment and the unix/franz/emacs environment on vaxen. Interlisp-D is far superior to franz. The display-based structure editor is extremely powerful, the system tracks all changes to files and permits you to save "in-core" changes back out into source files. It is smart enough to recompile only those functions that have changed. It supports the construction and incremental maintenance of masterscope databases (a wonderful interactive cross-refernce facility). It provides a large set of tools for implementing graphical browsers and displays to user datatypes. It includes a nice WYSIWIG text editor and drawing tools. I estimate that I am twice as effective at solving simple problems In Interlisp-D as in franz. I would never even attempt constructing a large system in franz. There isn't even a simple way (to my knowledge) in frnz to find out what the arguments to a function are, let alone finding a list of the currently defined functions. Lisp machines provide these features of course (in Interlisp-D, the ?= command does this). I would be very interest6ed to see some objective studies of programmer behavior comparing systems such as these. I would be particularly interested in comparisons between the Interlisp-D and SYmbolics programming environments. There have been many gripes on the net about the difficulty of learning "lisp machines", but I suspect that these apply mostly to Symbolics/LMI/TI machines rather than to Interlisp-D. --Tom Dietterich