Lisp for enterprise computing? - lisp

On Mar 18, 9:51 am, "John Thingstad" <jpth...@online.no> wrote:
> På Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:54:02 +0100, skrev <kodi...@eurogaran.com>:
>
> >> Well, with that attitude, it looks like you're off to a fairly poor
> >> start and you have a long way to go...
>
> > it looks like WE're off to a fairly poor
> > start and WE have a long way to go...
>
> Who's WE?

He has a mouse in his pocket.

You're really asking the wrong questions.

On Mar 17, 9:52 am, Harry <simonsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have heard some say on the Net that Lisp-based development is fast
> as well as intellectually very elegant and fulfilling. That Lisp is
> "the programmable programming language"... All this is certainly very
> encouraging; I tend to even believe all this, esp after reading Paul
> Graham's success story and a few articles here and there. However,
> since it may be a while before I know Lisp enough to be able to find
> my own answers, (just got my copies of Ansi Common Lisp and Practical
> Common Lisp) could some of you fine Lispers share your insights on the
> following in the meantime?

Lisp isn't magic. Every once in a while I have a dream where I start
jumping higher and higher and pretty soon I am flying. I think some
people expect that they will magically float above the considerations
of the world once they learn lisp. Then they find CL initially
uncomfortable rather than transcendant. This accounts for 90% of lisp-
hate, I think.

Anyway, all that programmability comes with a certain cognitive
overhead. If you are dead set on stringing statements one after
another CL is not a good choice for you. Unfortunately, most
programmers are dead set on doing exactly that.


> 1. How could Lisp be exploited in building enterprise applications
> (versus going the J2EE or .NET route)? In Web tier and in Biz Logic
> tier?

A small team of really good CL programmers could build you better
software than your current large team of idiot Java programmers. They
might have to build their own dotlisp tier to do so though, and that
might be expensive.

> 2. While I (am not afraid to and in fact) love writing code from
> scratch if needed (and if permitted), what community support (in the
> form of free/opensource libraries/packages similar to Perl CPAN and
> various Java/C/C++ sites) is available for Lisp?

CL has a lot of libraries. It has less than Java, because Sun doesn't
put millions into CL. You might have to roll your own for some
important stuff. But you'd be surprised at how many libs there are for
CL.

> 3. Could folks who have tried both J2EE and Lisp for enterprise
> computing share their experiences and insights?

J2EE is completely brain-dead, but well supported. Your HR department
will be able to hire many incompetents just by looking at their
resumes. CL can't compete with that.

> 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
> could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application? I'm
> coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
> +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
> application without side-effects!

Who cares? If you want a pure functional language you should look
elsewhere, IMHO. But, all of the calculation in your apps can be done
functionally, in CL, if you are that dedicated to nipple clamps.
That's basic theory.

> 5. What arguments could I give to my mgt (of primarily a J2EE shop) to
> give Lisp a small and cautious try?
>

It's unlikely that you can argue your management into mainlining CL
over, say, Java. But you can get an implementation and use it to do
something useful. Give them value. If they are not able to appreciate
value, get a new job.

Harry <simonsharry@gmail.com> writes:

> 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
> could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application? I'm
> coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
> +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
> application without side-effects!

Any large program involve christmas trees of pointers to
structures of pointers to structures of .....

In C this alternation is explicit. Lisp standardises on
pointers and in Common Lisp you use optional type
declarations to help the compile eliminate any overhead.

How do you avoid structure sharing bugs? One idea is to be
omniscient. Reality deals harshly with such hubris.

Another idea is "defensive deep copying" which is expensive
in both time and memory, and in actually writing the code.
One is tempted to trim, which introduces obscure bugs.

A better idea is "functional programming". Look at what a
functional program is actually doing when you change a data
structure. Usually it amounts to doing "just enough"
copying. Functional programming is a discipline for
designing out structure sharing bugs.

In Common Lisp the semantics of the built-in lists (done
with cons, car, cdr, endp) are biased towards functional
programming, but the semantics of arrays (including vectors)
and CLOS support imperative programming without reservation.

So Lisp style involves both designing out structure sharing
bugs by using functional techniques and using imperative
techniques for inplace algorithms and the like.

In the Lisp world functional programming is not a hair
shirt, it is protective clothing.

Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland

On 19 mar, 07:24, Campo <duncanr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You're really asking the wrong questions.
>
> On Mar 17, 9:52 am, Harry <simonsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
>
> > I have heard some say on the Net that Lisp-based development is fast
> > as well as intellectually very elegant and fulfilling.  That Lisp is
> > "the programmable programming language"... All this is certainly very
> > encouraging; I tend to even believe all this, esp after reading Paul
> > Graham's success story and a few articles here and there.  However,
> > since it may be a while before I know Lisp enough to be able to find
> > my own answers, (just got my copies of Ansi Common Lisp and Practical
> > Common Lisp) could some of you fine Lispers share your insights on the
> > following in the meantime?
>
> Lisp isn't magic. Every once in a while I have a dream where I start
> jumping higher and higher and pretty soon I am flying. I think some
> people expect that they will magically float above the considerations
> of the world once they learn lisp. Then they find CL initially
> uncomfortable rather than transcendant. This accounts for 90% of lisp-
> hate, I think.
>
> Anyway, all that programmability comes with a certain cognitive
> overhead. If you are dead set on stringing statements one after
> another CL is not a good choice for you. Unfortunately, most
> programmers are dead set on doing exactly that.
>
> > 1. How could Lisp be exploited in building enterprise applications
> > (versus going the J2EE or .NET route)? In Web tier and in Biz Logic
> > tier?
>
> A small team of really good CL programmers could build you better
> software than your current large team of idiot Java programmers. They
> might have to build their own dotlisp tier to do so though, and that
> might be expensive.
>
> > 2. While I (am not afraid to and in fact) love writing code from
> > scratch if needed (and if permitted), what community support (in the
> > form of free/opensource libraries/packages similar to Perl CPAN and
> > various Java/C/C++ sites) is available for Lisp?
>
> CL has a lot of libraries. It has less than Java, because Sun doesn't
> put millions into CL. You might have to roll your own for some
> important stuff. But you'd be surprised at how many libs there are for
> CL.
>
> > 3. Could folks who have tried both J2EE and Lisp for enterprise
> > computing share their experiences and insights?
>
> J2EE is completely brain-dead, but well supported. Your HR department
> will be able to hire many incompetents just by looking at their
> resumes. CL can't compete with that.
>
> > 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
> > could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application?  I'm
> > coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
> > +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
> > application without side-effects!
>
> Who cares? If you want a pure functional language you should look
> elsewhere, IMHO. But, all of the calculation in your apps can be done
> functionally, in CL, if you are that dedicated to nipple clamps.
> That's basic theory.
>
> > 5. What arguments could I give to my mgt (of primarily a J2EE shop) to
> > give Lisp a small and cautious try?
>
> It's unlikely that you can argue your management into mainlining CL
> over, say, Java. But you can get an implementation and use it to do
> something useful. Give them value. If they are not able to appreciate
> value, get a new job.

Hi all,

To take an example : JDK 1.6 arrives with a database (Derby). A slow,
really not bug free, database !

Allegro CL is selling with AllegroCache.

For industry, I prefer, a lot, to use Allegro CL.
Compared to Java : Allegro is more reliable, more quick, use less
memory, use a notably better Database, have more libraries ! all in
standard.

SUN invest, perhaps, millions in Java, but all of this money go to
smoke !
And, with the open source policy, there are actually Zero innovation
in the language.

Best Regards,

Christophe

Christophe <christophe.allegrini@birdtechnology.net> writes:

> On 19 mar, 07:24, Campo <duncanr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You're really asking the wrong questions.
>>
>> On Mar 17, 9:52 am, Harry <simonsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello,
>>
>> > I have heard some say on the Net that Lisp-based development is fast
>> > as well as intellectually very elegant and fulfilling.  That Lisp is
>> > "the programmable programming language"... All this is certainly very
>> > encouraging; I tend to even believe all this, esp after reading Paul
>> > Graham's success story and a few articles here and there.  However,
>> > since it may be a while before I know Lisp enough to be able to find
>> > my own answers, (just got my copies of Ansi Common Lisp and Practical
>> > Common Lisp) could some of you fine Lispers share your insights on the
>> > following in the meantime?
>>
>> Lisp isn't magic. Every once in a while I have a dream where I start
>> jumping higher and higher and pretty soon I am flying. I think some
>> people expect that they will magically float above the considerations
>> of the world once they learn lisp. Then they find CL initially
>> uncomfortable rather than transcendant. This accounts for 90% of lisp-
>> hate, I think.
>>
>> Anyway, all that programmability comes with a certain cognitive
>> overhead. If you are dead set on stringing statements one after
>> another CL is not a good choice for you. Unfortunately, most
>> programmers are dead set on doing exactly that.
>>
>> > 1. How could Lisp be exploited in building enterprise applications
>> > (versus going the J2EE or .NET route)? In Web tier and in Biz Logic
>> > tier?
>>
>> A small team of really good CL programmers could build you better
>> software than your current large team of idiot Java programmers. They
>> might have to build their own dotlisp tier to do so though, and that
>> might be expensive.
>>
>> > 2. While I (am not afraid to and in fact) love writing code from
>> > scratch if needed (and if permitted), what community support (in the
>> > form of free/opensource libraries/packages similar to Perl CPAN and
>> > various Java/C/C++ sites) is available for Lisp?
>>
>> CL has a lot of libraries. It has less than Java, because Sun doesn't
>> put millions into CL. You might have to roll your own for some
>> important stuff. But you'd be surprised at how many libs there are for
>> CL.
>>
>> > 3. Could folks who have tried both J2EE and Lisp for enterprise
>> > computing share their experiences and insights?
>>
>> J2EE is completely brain-dead, but well supported. Your HR department
>> will be able to hire many incompetents just by looking at their
>> resumes. CL can't compete with that.
>>
>> > 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
>> > could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application?  I'm
>> > coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
>> > +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
>> > application without side-effects!
>>
>> Who cares? If you want a pure functional language you should look
>> elsewhere, IMHO. But, all of the calculation in your apps can be done
>> functionally, in CL, if you are that dedicated to nipple clamps.
>> That's basic theory.
>>
>> > 5. What arguments could I give to my mgt (of primarily a J2EE shop) to
>> > give Lisp a small and cautious try?
>>
>> It's unlikely that you can argue your management into mainlining CL
>> over, say, Java. But you can get an implementation and use it to do
>> something useful. Give them value. If they are not able to appreciate
>> value, get a new job.
>
> Hi all,
>
> To take an example : JDK 1.6 arrives with a database (Derby). A slow,
> really not bug free, database !

Really? In my experience Derby is amazingly fast and reliable. I've
used it in numerous projects with success.

> Allegro CL is selling with AllegroCache.

Oh. Selling. No open source alternative?

> For industry, I prefer, a lot, to use Allegro CL.
> Compared to Java : Allegro is more reliable, more quick, use less
> memory, use a notably better Database, have more libraries ! all in
> standard.

You are comparing a key/value store to a full SQL database. Don't you
think that is rather silly? And really, before you make such claims,
show some numbers.

> SUN invest, perhaps, millions in Java, but all of this money go to
> smoke !
> And, with the open source policy, there are actually Zero innovation
> in the language.

Really? The open sourcing of Java 7 has actually led to many
improvements already. Including one significant one at the language
level, the introduction of a simple form of closures.

http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/JDK/ClosuresSyntaxInJava7

Personally I think it is a good thing that not much innovation is
happening in the language. Adding new stuff to a static language like
Java is really hard. Specially when you have to design these changes
with long durability in mind.

S.

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:23:56 -0700, kodifik wrote:
>
>> In 2001 I gave up everything related to computers and programming, but
>> then I rediscovered my initial interest through GNU/Linux and Lisp and
>> their communities. All four of them are good and I don't want them to
>> change, and they won't.
>>
> They will.

I think it is the world that is changing or adapting - not the other way
around.

--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/

On 19 mar, 15:11, Stefan Arentz <stefan.are...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christophe <christophe.allegr...@birdtechnology.net> writes:
> > On 19 mar, 07:24, Campo <duncanr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> You're really asking the wrong questions.
>
> >> On Mar 17, 9:52 am, Harry <simonsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Hello,
>
> >> > I have heard some say on the Net that Lisp-based development is fast
> >> > as well as intellectually very elegant and fulfilling.  That Lisp is
> >> > "the programmable programming language"... All this is certainly very
> >> > encouraging; I tend to even believe all this, esp after reading Paul
> >> > Graham's success story and a few articles here and there.  However,
> >> > since it may be a while before I know Lisp enough to be able to find
> >> > my own answers, (just got my copies of Ansi Common Lisp and Practical
> >> > Common Lisp) could some of you fine Lispers share your insights on the
> >> > following in the meantime?
>
> >> Lisp isn't magic. Every once in a while I have a dream where I start
> >> jumping higher and higher and pretty soon I am flying. I think some
> >> people expect that they will magically float above the considerations
> >> of the world once they learn lisp. Then they find CL initially
> >> uncomfortable rather than transcendant. This accounts for 90% of lisp-
> >> hate, I think.
>
> >> Anyway, all that programmability comes with a certain cognitive
> >> overhead. If you are dead set on stringing statements one after
> >> another CL is not a good choice for you. Unfortunately, most
> >> programmers are dead set on doing exactly that.
>
> >> > 1. How could Lisp be exploited in building enterprise applications
> >> > (versus going the J2EE or .NET route)? In Web tier and in Biz Logic
> >> > tier?
>
> >> A small team of really good CL programmers could build you better
> >> software than your current large team of idiot Java programmers. They
> >> might have to build their own dotlisp tier to do so though, and that
> >> might be expensive.
>
> >> > 2. While I (am not afraid to and in fact) love writing code from
> >> > scratch if needed (and if permitted), what community support (in the
> >> > form of free/opensource libraries/packages similar to Perl CPAN and
> >> > various Java/C/C++ sites) is available for Lisp?
>
> >> CL has a lot of libraries. It has less than Java, because Sun doesn't
> >> put millions into CL. You might have to roll your own for some
> >> important stuff. But you'd be surprised at how many libs there are for
> >> CL.
>
> >> > 3. Could folks who have tried both J2EE and Lisp for enterprise
> >> > computing share their experiences and insights?
>
> >> J2EE is completely brain-dead, but well supported. Your HR department
> >> will be able to hire many incompetents just by looking at their
> >> resumes. CL can't compete with that.
>
> >> > 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
> >> > could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application?  I'm
> >> > coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
> >> > +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
> >> > application without side-effects!
>
> >> Who cares? If you want a pure functional language you should look
> >> elsewhere, IMHO. But, all of the calculation in your apps can be done
> >> functionally, in CL, if you are that dedicated to nipple clamps.
> >> That's basic theory.
>
> >> > 5. What arguments could I give to my mgt (of primarily a J2EE shop) to
> >> > give Lisp a small and cautious try?
>
> >> It's unlikely that you can argue your management into mainlining CL
> >> over, say, Java. But you can get an implementation and use it to do
> >> something useful. Give them value. If they are not able to appreciate
> >> value, get a new job.
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > To take an example : JDK 1.6 arrives with a database (Derby). A slow,
> > really not bug free, database !
>
> Really? In my experience Derby is amazingly fast and reliable. I've
> used it in numerous projects with success.
>
> > Allegro CL is selling with AllegroCache.
>
> Oh. Selling. No open source alternative?

Franz doesn't a dumping Compagny, and don't work only Sunday ...
It's not a community, but an industry to produce very good products.

You buy your car, I think. You con understand it's logical to buy a
software.

The only difference between car and soft, it's the duplication cost.
But in all cases, you have a design and development cost.

>
> > For industry, I prefer, a lot, to use Allegro CL.
> > Compared to Java : Allegro is more reliable, more quick, use less
> > memory, use a notably better Database, have more libraries ! all in
> > standard.
>
> You are comparing a key/value store to a full SQL database. Don't you
> think that is rather silly? And really, before you make such claims,
> show some numbers.
>

You have never used AllegroCache. But, it's right they are no
comparison between Derby and AllegroCache. Really no !

> > SUN invest, perhaps, millions in Java, but all of this money go to
> > smoke !
> > And, with the open source policy, there are actually Zero innovation
> > in the language.
>
> Really? The open sourcing of Java 7 has actually led to many
> improvements already. Including one significant one at the language
> level, the introduction of a simple form of closures.
>

It's a joke, but a good example of forgotten in computer sciences in
general.

> http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/JDK/ClosuresSyntaxInJava7
>

Perhaps, SUN will give up JScheme to manage Corba Seriously, in
1980 Smalltalk offer a better way for closure, where is the
innovation ?
Or it's another joke.

> Personally I think it is a good thing that not much innovation is
> happening in the language. Adding new stuff to a static language like
> Java is really hard. Specially when you have to design these changes
> with long durability in mind.
>

Yes, perhaps, but what the utility of an old fashion language, subtain
c/c++ developers in there jobs ?

>  S.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

On 19 mar, 15:11, Stefan Arentz <stefan.are...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Christophe <christophe.allegr...@birdtechnology.net> writes:
> > On 19 mar, 07:24, Campo <duncanr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> You're really asking the wrong questions.
>
> >> On Mar 17, 9:52 am, Harry <simonsha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Hello,
>
> >> > I have heard some say on the Net that Lisp-based development is fast
> >> > as well as intellectually very elegant and fulfilling.  That Lisp is
> >> > "the programmable programming language"... All this is certainly very
> >> > encouraging; I tend to even believe all this, esp after reading Paul
> >> > Graham's success story and a few articles here and there.  However,
> >> > since it may be a while before I know Lisp enough to be able to find
> >> > my own answers, (just got my copies of Ansi Common Lisp and Practical
> >> > Common Lisp) could some of you fine Lispers share your insights on the
> >> > following in the meantime?
>
> >> Lisp isn't magic. Every once in a while I have a dream where I start
> >> jumping higher and higher and pretty soon I am flying. I think some
> >> people expect that they will magically float above the considerations
> >> of the world once they learn lisp. Then they find CL initially
> >> uncomfortable rather than transcendant. This accounts for 90% of lisp-
> >> hate, I think.
>
> >> Anyway, all that programmability comes with a certain cognitive
> >> overhead. If you are dead set on stringing statements one after
> >> another CL is not a good choice for you. Unfortunately, most
> >> programmers are dead set on doing exactly that.
>
> >> > 1. How could Lisp be exploited in building enterprise applications
> >> > (versus going the J2EE or .NET route)? In Web tier and in Biz Logic
> >> > tier?
>
> >> A small team of really good CL programmers could build you better
> >> software than your current large team of idiot Java programmers. They
> >> might have to build their own dotlisp tier to do so though, and that
> >> might be expensive.
>
> >> > 2. While I (am not afraid to and in fact) love writing code from
> >> > scratch if needed (and if permitted), what community support (in the
> >> > form of free/opensource libraries/packages similar to Perl CPAN and
> >> > various Java/C/C++ sites) is available for Lisp?
>
> >> CL has a lot of libraries. It has less than Java, because Sun doesn't
> >> put millions into CL. You might have to roll your own for some
> >> important stuff. But you'd be surprised at how many libs there are for
> >> CL.
>
> >> > 3. Could folks who have tried both J2EE and Lisp for enterprise
> >> > computing share their experiences and insights?
>
> >> J2EE is completely brain-dead, but well supported. Your HR department
> >> will be able to hire many incompetents just by looking at their
> >> resumes. CL can't compete with that.
>
> >> > 4. How much of a pure functional style of programming (with no setf's)
> >> > could be used in building a non-trivial enterprise application?  I'm
> >> > coming from primarily an imperative programming background (Java/C/C+
> >> > +) and am wondering how could one possibly write a nontrivial/large
> >> > application without side-effects!
>
> >> Who cares? If you want a pure functional language you should look
> >> elsewhere, IMHO. But, all of the calculation in your apps can be done
> >> functionally, in CL, if you are that dedicated to nipple clamps.
> >> That's basic theory.
>
> >> > 5. What arguments could I give to my mgt (of primarily a J2EE shop) to
> >> > give Lisp a small and cautious try?
>
> >> It's unlikely that you can argue your management into mainlining CL
> >> over, say, Java. But you can get an implementation and use it to do
> >> something useful. Give them value. If they are not able to appreciate
> >> value, get a new job.
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > To take an example : JDK 1.6 arrives with a database (Derby). A slow,
> > really not bug free, database !
>
> Really? In my experience Derby is amazingly fast and reliable. I've
> used it in numerous projects with success.
>
> > Allegro CL is selling with AllegroCache.
>
> Oh. Selling. No open source alternative?
>
> > For industry, I prefer, a lot, to use Allegro CL.
> > Compared to Java : Allegro is more reliable, more quick, use less
> > memory, use a notably better Database, have more libraries ! all in
> > standard.
>
> You are comparing a key/value store to a full SQL database. Don't you
> think that is rather silly? And really, before you make such claims,
> show some numbers.
>
> > SUN invest, perhaps, millions in Java, but all of this money go to
> > smoke !
> > And, with the open source policy, there are actually Zero innovation
> > in the language.
>
> Really? The open sourcing of Java 7 has actually led to many
> improvements already. Including one significant one at the language
> level, the introduction of a simple form of closures.
>
> http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/JDK/ClosuresSyntaxInJava7
>
> Personally I think it is a good thing that not much innovation is
> happening in the language. Adding new stuff to a static language like
> Java is really hard. Specially when you have to design these changes
> with long durability in mind.
>
>  S.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Christophe <christophe.allegrini@birdtechnology.net> writes:

....

>> > To take an example : JDK 1.6 arrives with a database (Derby). A slow,
>> > really not bug free, database !
>>
>> Really? In my experience Derby is amazingly fast and reliable. I've
>> used it in numerous projects with success.
>>
>> > Allegro CL is selling with AllegroCache.
>>
>> Oh. Selling. No open source alternative?
>
> Franz doesn't a dumping Compagny, and don't work only Sunday ...
> It's not a community, but an industry to produce very good products.
>
> You buy your car, I think. You con understand it's logical to buy a
> software.
>
> The only difference between car and soft, it's the duplication cost.
> But in all cases, you have a design and development cost.

That is not an answer to my question.

>> > For industry, I prefer, a lot, to use Allegro CL.
>> > Compared to Java : Allegro is more reliable, more quick, use less
>> > memory, use a notably better Database, have more libraries ! all in
>> > standard.
>>
>> You are comparing a key/value store to a full SQL database. Don't you
>> think that is rather silly? And really, before you make such claims,
>> show some numbers.
>>
>
> You have never used AllegroCache. But, it's right they are no
> comparison between Derby and AllegroCache. Really no !

I have actually used AllegroCache for several experiments and I was
quite happy with it. It would be better to compare it to for example
Berkeley DB though, which is available for both Java and C.

[ cut away the parts that were jibberish]

>> Personally I think it is a good thing that not much innovation is
>> happening in the language. Adding new stuff to a static language like
>> Java is really hard. Specially when you have to design these changes
>> with long durability in mind.
>>
>
> Yes, perhaps, but what the utility of an old fashion language, subtain
> c/c++ developers in there jobs ?

The Java ecosystem is quite alive actually. Commercially, open source
and community wise.

S.