From: John Carlson
Subject: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Date:
Message-ID: <166@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
After several years experience with UNIX, something dawned on
me. I know too many languages: C, awk, sed, lex, yacc, Bourne Shell, C shell
and now I may learn UIL, Xcu's wlm etc., etc. I know too many
configuration file formats: fstab, passwd, Xdefaults, termcap, exports,
etc. etc. I know to many expression formats: regexp, X fonts, globbing.
Unfortunately, I am entirely unfamilar with LISP machines.
Given the same functionality as UNIX, could LISP
provide some uniformity; would LISP make a system easier to use,
administer, and develop on, or would I have to learn several
configuration file formats and expression formats? Does
LISP vary formats as widely as UNIX does?
To UNIX people: Could all of these configuration files be standardized?
John "Maybe LISP isn't so complex after all" Carlson
In article <···@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> ·······@aftac.tis.llnl.gov (John Carlson) writes:
>
> After several years experience with UNIX, something dawned on
> me. I know too many languages: C, awk, sed, lex, yacc, Bourne Shell, C shell
> and now I may learn UIL, Xcu's wlm etc., etc. I know too many
> configuration file formats: fstab, passwd, Xdefaults, termcap, exports,
> etc. etc. I know to many expression formats: regexp, X fonts, globbing.
>
> Unfortunately, I am entirely unfamilar with LISP machines.
> Given the same functionality as UNIX, could LISP
> provide some uniformity; would LISP make a system easier to use,
> administer, and develop on, or would I have to learn several
> configuration file formats and expression formats? Does
> LISP vary formats as widely as UNIX does?
>
> To UNIX people: Could all of these configuration files be standardized?
>
> John "Maybe LISP isn't so complex after all" Carlson
>
Better yet: develop LISP on a unix box. That way you have the best
(and the worst) of both worlds. {And, you can drop C from your list of
supported languages :-)}
Seriously, system admin on a Symbolics LISPm is a serious headache
compared to Sun system admin. The networking software is not as
sophisticated (yes, I _do_ know about Sun's infamous YP); the
documentation for the various configuration files is sketchy; you
would miss the tools like grep, awk, & piping.
On the other hand, I still miss the LISPm tools like the powerful
ZMACS editor, the frame-based source debugger, the mouse-sensitve
inspector, and the nice toggle interface to the disassembler. I hope
you are listening, Lucid.
--Doug
--
===============================================================
Douglas Roberts
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Box 1663, MS F-602
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
(505)667-4569
····@lanl.gov
===============================================================
From: Eric A. Raymond
Subject: Re: Tired C programmer (Really configuration files)
Date:
Message-ID: <1131@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>
In article <·····················@studguppy.lanl.gov> ·······@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes:
>supported languages :-)}
>
>Seriously, system admin on a Symbolics LISPm is a serious headache
>compared to Sun system admin.
Debateable. Certainly they are different. Certianly a LISPM takes a
lot of knowledge to operate, but I wonder how that compares to A UN*X
box? I think the real issue is that a LISPM is breaks traditional
molds and you must adopt a different attitude towards it.
>The networking software is not as sophisticated.
Hmmm. Do you have the layered products? One thing that a LISPM does
is to provide excellent support for networking in a heterogenous
environment.
>documentation for the various configuration files is sketchy; you
Really. Seemed like there was a whole volume dedicated to it. And it
should be online in the document examiner.
>I would miss the tools like grep, awk, & piping.
That's because your mixing your metaphors. On a LISPM you would do
things differently. Don't use GREP if you want to find a function
(but if you do, the ZMACS editor provides a flexible mechanism for
doing all sorts of searches, multiple replaces, etc across multiple
files (although this is not documented very well, agreed), just press
a key and instantly you are editing the function definition or it's
callers. Not sure of the name, try apropos.
>
>On the other hand, I still miss the LISPm tools like the powerful
>ZMACS editor, the frame-based source debugger, the mouse-sensitve
>inspector, and the nice toggle interface to the disassembler. I hope
>you are listening, Lucid.
And Franz too.
Note: LISPM references almost always mean Symbolics running Genera
7.x
--
Eric A. Raymond (·······@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov)
G7 C7 G7 G#7 G7 G+13 C7 GM7 Am7 Bm7 Bd7 Am7 C7 Do13 G7 C7 G7 D+13: Elmore James
[Stuff about how tiresome Unix development environments can be]
[Stuff about how wonderful LISPm's are]
[Much more of this and it will begin to sound like the stupid grep vs.
search wars going on in comp.software-eng]
.
.
.
Haven't we all heard this before? LISPMs are superior for developing
LISP code. Granted. After all, that's what they were put on this world
for.
Unix boxes are superior general purpose machines. My point, (being
made from the point of view of a former Symbolics bigot), the one I
attempted to make about three follow-ups ago, is that each environment
has its strengths and weaknesses. My own personal choice, after fours
years of life in front of a 3600 was to switch to a Sun. And while
I've cursed the sparsness of the LISP environment on the Sun as
compared to my old 3600, my overall productivity has improved because
of the other tools provided by Unix (grep, find, pipeing, awk, troff,
tbl, eqn, me, tar, fsck & format [ever try to repair a bad block on a
Symbolics disk? It can be done. It's not fun. For that matter, have
you ever tried to boot your Symbolics diskless after its disk
cratered?]...).
On the optimistic side regarding LISP on the Unix boxes, I suspect
that better development environments will be forthcoming. I've seen
improvements in Lucid's product, and it wouldn't surprise me if other
vendors (Envos, Franz, Symbolics??) didn't try to capture some of the
Unix LISP market by providing more powerful development environments
than currently exist.
--Doug
--
===============================================================
Douglas Roberts
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Box 1663, MS F-602
Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
(505)667-4569
····@lanl.gov
===============================================================
From: Eric A. Raymond
Subject: Re: Unix Vs LISPm Religeous Wars, was Re: Tired C programmer...
Date:
Message-ID: <1133@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>
In article <····················@studguppy.lanl.gov> ·······@studguppy.lanl.gov (Doug Roberts) writes:
>compared to my old 3600, my overall productivity has improved because
>of the other tools provided by Unix (grep, find, pipeing, awk, troff,
>tbl, eqn, me, tar, fsck & format [ever try to repair a bad block on a
>Symbolics disk? It can be done. It's not fun. For that matter, have
>you ever tried to boot your Symbolics diskless after its disk
>cratered?]...).
There is equivalent functionality for all of these on a LISPM. There
just buried deep in the source code :-)
I agree that some of the low level file system leaves much to be
desired, but (to be realistic) I doubt it was really ever polished up
for non-techy use. That what's field support is for.
>On the optimistic side regarding LISP on the Unix boxes, I suspect
>that better development environments will be forthcoming.
Soon or later. Unfortunately it will be later and we've been hearing
this for a LONG time.
--
Eric A. Raymond (·······@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov)
G7 C7 G7 G#7 G7 G+13 C7 GM7 Am7 Bm7 Bd7 Am7 C7 Do13 G7 C7 G7 D+13: Elmore James
From: Mike Clarkson
Subject: Re: Unix Vs LISPm Religeous Wars, was Re: Tired C programmer...
Date:
Message-ID: <384@ists.ists.ca>
In article <····@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>, ·······@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Eric A. Raymond) writes:
> I agree that some of the low level file system leaves much to be
> desired, but (to be realistic) I doubt it was really ever polished up
> for non-techy use. That what's field support is for.
That's also why I could buy a Sun a year for what I was paying for hardware
and software field support contracts. I would have had enough left over
to have each of the new Suns supported as well.
Mike.
--
Mike Clarkson ····@ists.ists.ca
Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science uunet!attcan!ists!mike
York University, North York, Ontario, FORTRAN - just say no.
CANADA M3J 1P3 +1 (416) 736-5611