| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 47.1 | VAX Lisp on PMAX | BONNET::COUTIER | | Tue Jan 17 1989 17:31 | 35 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 09-Jan-1989 07:12 CET
From: SOOHO
SOOHO@AITG@MRGATE@VALMTS@VBO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: COUTIER.PASCAL@ETCA1
Subject: RE: Timing for Vax Lisp on PMAX
Hi Pascal,
VAX LISP V3.0 will FRS in the June/July timeframe. It will support DECwindows,
but not PMAX.
For the past few months, we've been busy planning out the VAX LISP port to PMAX
project. Our preliminary schedule indicates an FRS in the second half of FY90.
Unfortunately, some of the development work is scheduled for FY90 and we won't
have our budget approved until the next few months. So, we can't make any
commitments to customers yet because we may not get the funding.
By the way, who has been asking for VAX LISP on PMAX? One of the activities I
intend to carry out when we submit our PMAX port proposal is to ask various
marketing groups to identify customers who want/need VAX LISP on PMAX. I'd
appreciate any information you could give me.
Well, that's all for now. How are AI marketing activities going over there?
Regards,
Liz
|
| 47.2 | C++ on PMAX | PRSUD2::MERCIER | Henri Mercier,SWAS Paris | Tue Feb 07 1989 18:23 | 4 |
| I have seen in another Note File that C++ from OASYS is available
on DS3100 .
- Henri -
|
| 47.3 | CAIM's position regarding PMAX Lisp | BONNET::COUTIER | | Mon Feb 20 1989 11:01 | 102 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 19-Feb-1989 09:39 CET
From: PAPAGEORGE
PAPAGEORGE@AITG@BONNET@MRGATE@VALMTS@VBO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: Pascal COUTIER@VBO
Subject: Recommendations on Lisp for PMAX
Pascal,
I share your concern with respect to Lisp on DECstation 3100. I have also
received a number of requests from the field and have actually surveyed the
needs of AI SWS people in the US. If you are interested I can send you
those results and do something similar in Europe surveying the AI folks; or
you can spearhead the survey from Valbonne.
In the short term (6 months) we have a challenge in terms of positioning a
Lisp for the DECstation 3100. My recommendation is summarized in the
following comments (in caps) where I have answered your specific questions in
detail.
Thanks,
Themis
==============================================================================
From: VALMTS::VALMTS::MRGATE::"ETCA1::COUTIER.PASCAL" 14-FEB-1989 10:27:44.38
To: AITG::PAPAGEORGE
CC:
Subj: Lisp on PMAX: what do we recommend NOW?
From: NAME: PASCAL COUTIER @VBO
FUNC: SYSTEMS MARKETING
TEL: DTN: 828 / X: 5801 <COUTIER.PASCAL AT ETCA1 at VALMTS at VBO>
To: PAPAGEORGE@AITG@VAXMAIL
Themis,
More and more salespeople call me because they are in the sales situation where
they are fighting back SUN with the PMAX, and talking to software developers and
R&D groups. They are asked about availability of VAX LISP on the PMAX, and they
don't like having to admit it is a year away. To close the sale right now, they
would like to know if there are some third-party LISP running on the PMAX, which
they can "safely" recommend to their customers for the time being.
THE FEEDBACK FROM THE FIELD IN THE US IS SIMILAR; PEOPLE WANT A LISP FROM
DIGITAL AND WANT IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE DONE A COUPLE OF THINGS:
1) WE TALK TO CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE APPLICATION AND TRY TO FIND OUT IF A PVAX
BASED VAX LISP WOULD SUFFICE. INTERESTINGLY, IN MANY CASES I
HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, CUSTOMERS WENT AHEAD WITH PVAX AND VAX LISP.
2) WE HAVE ENCOURAGED SALES AND SWS REPS TO SEND US THEIR NEEDS SO WE CAN
BUILD A CASE FOR FUNDING THE PROJECT OF PORTING (AND EVENTUALLY
INTEGRATING VAX AND PMAX LISP) ON DECSTATION 3100.
3) ALL MAJOR LISP VENDORS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR INTENTION, AS OF 10 JANUARY
1989, TO PROVIDE THEIR LISP ON THE PMAX. FROM A CURRENT MARKET SHARE POINT
OF VIEW LUCID LISP IS THE DOMINANT THIRD PARTY VENDOR, AND IN THE MEETING
WE HAD WITH THEM IN DECEMBER THEY FEEL CONFIDENT WITH DELIVERING THEIR
PRODUCT IN THE DECEMBER 1989 TIMEFRAME.
I have heard that Allegro and Ibuki (spelling not guaranteed!) already run on
the PMAX.
I HAVE HEARD SIMILAR RUMORS AND I BELIEVE THAT THOSE TWO VENDORS ARE
CLOSEST TO HAVING A LISP FOR THE PMAX. MY GUESS IS JUNE 1989-SEPTEMBER 1989
FOR COMMERCIAL DELIVERY. (SPELLING IS RIGHT ON!!)
What is CAIM's position for this transition period? Do we have a good
intermediate solution to recommend (along with technical justifications as to
why we think this alternate LISP, although not as good as our own, would
qualify) ?
NO, AS A MATTER OF POLICY WE DO NOT RECOMMEND A PRODUCT UNLESS WE HAVE SOME
KIND OF RELATIONSHIP (ISV, DDS, CMP ETC.)
WE HAVE TECHNICAL REPORTS ON THESE PRODUCTS, BUT I AM NOT AWARE OF ANYBODY
HAVING DONE ANY TECHNICAL EVALUATION OR BENCHMARKING. I'LL BE GLAD TO SEND
YOU THE REPORTS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.
Best regards,
Pascal
LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION.
THEMIS
|
| 47.4 | Ibuki Common Lisp - FYI | BONNET::COUTIER | | Mon Feb 20 1989 11:02 | 41 |
|
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 19-Feb-1989 10:20 CET
From: PAPAGEORGE
PAPAGEORGE@AITG@BONNET@MRGATE@VALMTS@VBO
Dept:
Tel No:
TO: Pascal COUTIER@VBO
Subject: Ibuki Lisp-FYI
From: AITG::SOOHO "Liz Sooho . 291-8034 . DLB5-2/B7" 16-FEB-1989 11:20:37.66
To: TIM, NORMA, THEMIS, RAHAIM
CC:
Subj: fyi -- quick facts on IBUKI Common LISP
IBUKI Common LISP
-----------------
Quick Crib Sheet
o IBUKI Common LISP is derived from Kyoto Common LISP (in the public domain)
- KCL has a reputation of having MANY bugs
- IBUKI's main value added is providing bug fixes to KCL and porting
to different hardware platforms
- IBUKI is an 8 person company
o IBUKI is written in C
- LISP source code is translated to C source code; developer then needs
a C compiler to compile C source code
- the LISP developer must know C to debug LISP program
- the LISP developer also has to write some C source code in "LISP"
program to call-out to other routines
o KCL is significantly slower than VAX LISP/ULTRIX V2.2
(don't have official Gabriel benchmarks though)
|
| 47.5 | IBUKI Common Lisp is no so bad. | MLNOIS::TOGNAZZI | | Tue Mar 14 1989 10:43 | 10 |
| IBUKI common lisp is no so bad that the description show.
the fact that you could mix some lisp code with c is seems to be
an advantage than a disadvantage. It's no true than you must known
C for debug lisp code. Only if you wont to go inside the compiler you
need C knownledge. The IBUKI lisp as few bugs. The fact that is
write completaly in C help you to move into different platform,
for this reason it seems to be the only lisp avalable on DS3100.
Dario.
|
| 47.6 | Phase review for DEC LISP | BONNET::COUTIER | | Tue Apr 11 1989 09:34 | 147 |
|
Subject: Opening of Phase 0 for DEC LISP V1.0
+---------------+
! d i g i t a l ! I n t e r o f f i c e M e m o r a n d u m
+---------------+
To: LISP interest list Date: 10 April 1989
From: Liz Sooho
Dept: AITG Product Management
Ext: 291-8034, DLB5-2/B7
Enet: AITG::SOOHO
Subject: Opening of Phase 0 for DEC LISP V1.0
Phase 0 for DEC LISP V1.0 is now open. V1.0 will run on RISC platforms
initially; we intend to merge VAX LISP and DEC LISP into one product in a
follow-on version.
The LISP Development Group plans to use VAX LISP/VMS V3.0, Digital's extended
Common LISP implementation, as the basis for the RISC port. VAX LISP/VMS V3.0
is currently in field test and includes a DECwindows-based programming
environment, an ephemeral garbage collector, and a System Building Utility
(patent filed) for customized run-time environments. VAX LISP has the
reputation of being a very reliable Common LISP implementation in the LISP
marketplace.
Deadline to Submit Product Requirements is 21 April, 1989
---------------------------------------------------------
Below is a list of initial requirements for DEC LISP V1.0. If you have
any requirements along these lines or any other requirements for DEC LISP,
please fill out the attached form and submit them to AITG::SOOHO by 21 April
1989. We would appreciate your immediate response as the target Phase 0
exit timeframe is mid-May.
We would also appreciate feedback on the initial requirements listed below.
Time to market is a high priority, but what minimum functionality should
DEC LISP V1.0 have in order to be competitive?
Initial Requirements Under Consideration for DEC LISP V1.0
----------------------------------------------------------
o Q3 FY90 target FRS
o VAX LISP and DEC LISP source code compatibility
- only operating system dependent code should have to be reimplemented
- users should be able to recompile the rest of their source code
o features from VAX LISP/VMS V3.0:
- DECwindows-based programming environment
. VAX LISP editor
. LISP listener
. stepper
. tracer
. stack debugger
. inspector
- XUI toolkit and CLX programming interfaces
- ephemeral garbage collector
- System Building Utility
o new, optimizing compiler
o full DECwindows compliance according to DECwindows Clearinghouse guidelines
PHASE 0 REQUEST FOR VAX LISP V4.0
INPUT FORM
1. SUBMITTED BY:
Name
DTN
Node
Loc/Mail Stop
Dept
Position
2. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (single paragraph or less) description of each
requirement.
3. DESCRIPTION
Include a detailed description of each requirement and an indication of
what you hope to achieve.
4. SCHEDULE
Indicate any schedule conflicts with or dependencies on other products.
5. BENEFIT
Describe the benefit of adding this feature, including substantiating
data.
6. IMPACT OF NOT MEETING REQUEST
Describe the impact to Digital if your request is turned down. Please
explain this in terms of lost opportunities and markets.
7. JUSTIFICATION
What is the best argument for doing this work other than the obvious
benefit stated above.
8. RATING:
Rate the importance of including the requirement using the following
scale:
10 - ESSENTIAL 5 - IMPORTANT 1 - DESIRABLE
ESSENTIAL--It is a critical feature, the absense of which would
cause most customers not to purchase the product and would cause major
damage to customers' perception of the product. The next release of
the product should not be shipped without this feature.
IMPORTANT--The lack of this feature may cause certain customers not
to purchase the product, either because it is a feature that is available
and used often in other products or it is a feature they have requested
for a long time. The next release of the product should include this
feature unless its inclusion would jeopardize the time-to-market goals.
DESIRABLE--The lack of this feature will cause some customers not to
purchase the product and will be a source of complaint for those who
do purchase the product. This feature is not necessary for the next
release, but it should be included in a follow-on release as soon as
possible.
9. KNOWN ISSUES
Include a statement of risks to either the schedule or the content.
10. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Identify any documents that add detail to the request.
|