My response was more to the here's somebody that's done it ... not specifically as a goal for a presentation for the group. ... anyways, I was just trying to poke a bit of "hey, have you seen" .. and you made it very well known that you had. That was the point, all done. --jw. On 6/21/06, Brandon J. Van Every <bvanevery@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Wood wrote:
My response would be to look @ the game developer article on Naughty Dog ( a game production company that was purchased by Sony ... if I'm remembering correctly ) ... they used a LOT of lisp in their internal stuff ... made for some great games ... made them good enough they got bought ... and of course, then their technology was too much and got killed by the parent company ...
I'm quite aware of Naughty Dog. It's not really that interesting to me as a presentation though, unless someone has a way of obtaining someone from Naughty Dog that did the GOAL code. Dog and pony of open source Lisp games is potentially more interesting because people can download and play with it. Granted there aren't any great Lisp games out there. Stratagus was previously one of the better ones; it began life as Freecraft, a Warcraft clone. But in the transition to Stratagus, the new hands on board dumped the Scheme interpreter. See, this is a pattern. I'm not eager to do any kind of presentation about Naughty Dog unless there's a principal to give it. Any secondhand presentation ends with "Well, uh, and they dumped Lisp in favor of the same old crud." Depressing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp
... I agree it's not something that everybody can play with right now ... but it does show that people are doing *something* with it ... and are willing to invest in good ideas ...
What it proves, is that if you're making an expensive mainstream title, you can pay someone to sit around and invent their own programming language. Then it'll turn out that that guy had fun making his career at the partial expense of the product he was working on. The subsequent team that comes in, has no investment in the newfangled code and dumps it. It is a very bad model for sustainable Lisp development. Hmm, yet more reason to stick to my guns about developing a 3D Scheme engine from scratch. If the core technology is not Scheme, if it is just an embedded language, then the embedded language will be replaced by whatever else becomes au courrant. Even if Scheme is really easy to embed, and makes headway on new projects in that manner, I think without a "major anchor" it just drifts away into the ocean of scripting languages.
Cheers, Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________ seattle mailing list seattle@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seattle