Nirved wrote:
>
> What would an CommonLISP Opeating System consists?
I'd guess it'd be either an OS written in CL or
an OS written to support CL in some special way.
Maybe both.
> Which extensions it would have?
Whichever ones its authors decided were good for the
applications it claims to support. (For example, "play
tinny rendition of a bit of the William Tell Overture"
would be a handy addition to some 8051 OSs.)
> Please give your opinion.
Am I allowed only one? Gimme a minute.... OK - how about:
If the mere accident of OS implementation language becomes
important to the user then that OS is broken.
Ian Wild <···@cfmu.eurocontrol.int> writes:
> > Which extensions it would have?
>
> Whichever ones its authors decided were good for the
> applications it claims to support. (For example, "play
> tinny rendition of a bit of the William Tell Overture"
> would be a handy addition to some 8051 OSs.)
I recently upgraded the console on my Alpha from AlphaBIOS (the NT
bootloader) to SRM (the stuff that Digital Unix expects), primarily so
it would actually boot from the IDE disk, but also because
(with-oblisp it makes a difference to the PAL code and SBCL/alpha does
interesting stuff with trap instructions)
An unexpected side benefit is that I now have a bootloader which can
play a tinny rendition of "the yellow rose of texas".
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:32:29 GMT, Ian Wild <···@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
wrote:
>
>If the mere accident of OS implementation language becomes
>important to the user then that OS is broken.
Surely there are many kinds of users, ranging from, e g those who
write device drivers for the OS, all the way up to the Icon-clickers.
I have always felt that saying "the user" in such a general way is a
sure path to misunderstandings.
Therefore, I always assume that a user is someone who does not write
programs. Is your user my kind of user?
Lars
···············@telia.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:32:29 GMT, Ian Wild <···@cfmu.eurocontrol.int>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >If the mere accident of OS implementation language becomes
> >important to the user then that OS is broken.
>
> Surely there are many kinds of users, ranging from, e g those who
> write device drivers for the OS, all the way up to the Icon-clickers.
> I have always felt that saying "the user" in such a general way is a
> sure path to misunderstandings.
>
> Therefore, I always assume that a user is someone who does not write
> programs. Is your user my kind of user?
I write programs. In my time I've written device drivers. Both
are, IMO, "uses" of the OS. It's of little interest to me what language
was used to implement the OS, just so long as it does its job.
An OS that forces me to consider how it was written before it can
fulfill its side of the bargain is broken.
··········@yahoo.com (Nirved) writes:
> What would an CommonLISP Opeating System consists?
> Which extensions it would have?
> Please give your opinion.
Obviously, it would start out with a portable implementation of
INTERLISP on stock hardware, with Common Lisp available to the
applications and systems programer via clever use of DWIM. In fact,
all of its support for other languages would be via DWIM, although
this may require some updating of DWIM -- I haven't thought it out
completely yet :-)
But seriously, I've been reading "Interlisp: the language and its
usage" (I was bored and in the engineering library, and came across it
-- the interesting thing is that means someone else had just been
reading it), and it's really interesting. The only Lisp dialects I've
known have been Scheme and Maclisp-derived, so it's interesting to
read about the other major branch in the 80's. The book was published
at about the same time as CLtL, and it's pretty cool how different
they are. There was some good stuff in there, too -- it's kind of too
bad there's not a modern descendant of interlisp, but I guess there
really aren't enough Lisp users anymore to support CL and a modern
interlisp. Too bad.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote in message news:<···············@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>...
> Obviously, it would start out with a portable implementation of
> INTERLISP on stock hardware, with Common Lisp available to the
> applications and systems programer via clever use of DWIM. In fact,
> all of its support for other languages would be via DWIM, although
> this may require some updating of DWIM -- I haven't thought it out
> completely yet :-)
I want an implementation of perl using DWIM.
--tim
On 21 Nov 2001 12:58:48 -0800, ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F.
Burdick) wrote:
> they are. There was some good stuff in there, too -- it's kind of too
> bad there's not a modern descendant of interlisp, but I guess there
> really aren't enough Lisp users anymore to support CL and a modern
> interlisp. Too bad.
I seem to have heard that there is an INTERLISP implementation written in
Common Lisp. I have no other details, sorry.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://web.mclink.it/amoroso/ency/README
[http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/]
On 21 Nov 2001 12:58:48 -0800, ···@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas
F. Burdick) wrote:
>··········@yahoo.com (Nirved) writes:
>
>> What would an CommonLISP Opeating System consists?
>> Which extensions it would have?
>> Please give your opinion.
>
>Obviously, it would start out with a portable implementation of
>INTERLISP on stock hardware, with Common Lisp available to the
>applications and systems programer via clever use of DWIM.
Well, there is an implementation that runs on stock hardware, with a
CLtL1 available: http://top2bottom.net/medley.html. I'm pretty sure
that CL doesn't depend any more on DWIM than the rest of the
system:-).
There's also a pure-Interlisp version available, based on a Swedish
Fortran version: www.florida-software.com/algorithms
The former's based on the Xerox environment, so it includes the full
graphical system, network, etc., but it takes $'s. The latter is
free, and "only" provides the text-based version.
...arun
··········@yahoo.com (Nirved) writes:
> What would an CommonLISP Opeating System consists?
> Which extensions it would have?
> Please give your opinion.
Why? So you can pick holes in it? So you can decide where, on such a
project, to start?
The "LispOS" notion has been _heavily_ discussed in the past, and a
number of attempts at such a thing have been, well, attempted. The
most successful of such attempts was probably Symbolics, which isn't
selling too many Lisp Machines these days.
It's not so much "extensions" that would be important as it is coming
up with a feasible way of accomplishing such a system in the first
place. There are quite a few barriers to feasibility, not necessarily
to make it impossible, but certainly to make it unlikely that attempts
will succeed. see URL below for links to many of the past "attempts."
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ····················@" "454aa"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/lisposes.html
"While the Melissa license is a bit unclear, Melissa aggressively
encourages free distribution of its source code." -- Kevin Dalley
<·····@seti.org>