From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3adv25cth.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com>
······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
Takes me back to some malloc()-related code commented:
/* Free the Mayonnaise Jar Six! */
I think you're going to have to complain to the authors of ilisp about
how they're being discriminatory and diminuitive to all these Lisp
implementations. Unfortunately, you can't accuse them of being
racist, because Lisp doesn't have a race. (Race conditions,
maybe... Race? No...)
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/wp.html
"Now they show you how detergents take out bloodstains, a pretty
violent image there. I think if you've got a T-shirt with a bloodstain
all over it, maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem. Maybe you
should get rid of the body before you do the wash." --Jerry Seinfeld
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <ymin0yyxpis.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
> ······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
I've always considered that phrasing rather poor.
In fact, what is being done is that lisp is being launched as an
"inferior job" to the Emacs. In other words, a new process that is
controlled by (inferior to) Emacs. It is a comment on the process
relationship rather than an editorial comment about the quality of the
lisp process. It does lead to confusion or at least head-scratching.
I would guess that "subordinate" would be a better choice of term.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute ···@isi.edu
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3vgdm43wu.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>> ······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
>> > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things
>> > like: "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
> I've always considered that phrasing rather poor.
> In fact, what is being done is that lisp is being launched as an
> "inferior job" to the Emacs. In other words, a new process that is
> controlled by (inferior to) Emacs. It is a comment on the process
> relationship rather than an editorial comment about the quality of
> the lisp process. It does lead to confusion or at least
> head-scratching.
> I would guess that "subordinate" would be a better choice of term.
A better term might be "servant," being shorter, and more widely used.
The fact that it is of ancient provenance also seems a good thing.
To be more specific, it is used 458 times in the King James Version of
the Bible, which, even supposing you regard it solely from a
linguistic perspective, has had a heavy influence on the development
and dissemination of the English language.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string ··········@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spiritual.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #172. "I will allow guards to operate under
a flexible work schedule. That way if one is feeling sleepy, he can
call for a replacement, punch out, take a nap, and come back refreshed
and alert to finish out his shift. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> > ······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> > > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> > > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
>
> I've always considered that phrasing rather poor.
>
> In fact, what is being done is that lisp is being launched as an
> "inferior job" to the Emacs. In other words, a new process that is
> controlled by (inferior to) Emacs. It is a comment on the process
> relationship rather than an editorial comment about the quality of the
> lisp process. It does lead to confusion or at least head-scratching.
>
> I would guess that "subordinate" would be a better choice of term.
The term inferior predates Unix and was a technical term on an OS
Emacs grew up on. ISTR Multics, in which case the paper on Multics
Emacs at multicians.org could shed more light on it.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
She says, "Honey, you're a Bastard of great proportion."
He says, "Darling, I plead guilty to that sin."
Cowboy Junkies -- A few simple words
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <3C583B56.DDD9EBE6@nyc.rr.com>
Checking my dictionary, i see two likely definitions:
1. in a lower position
2. (describing a planet) inside Earth's orbit
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
----------------------------------
"Catch a wave."
- Brian Wilson
From: Fredrik Staxeng
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <1mr8o4ky90.fsf@Tempo.Update.UU.SE>
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be> writes:
> ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>
> > > ······@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> > > > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> > > > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
> >
> > I've always considered that phrasing rather poor.
> >
> > In fact, what is being done is that lisp is being launched as an
> > "inferior job" to the Emacs. In other words, a new process that is
> > controlled by (inferior to) Emacs. It is a comment on the process
> > relationship rather than an editorial comment about the quality of the
> > lisp process. It does lead to confusion or at least head-scratching.
> >
> > I would guess that "subordinate" would be a better choice of term.
>
> The term inferior predates Unix and was a technical term on an OS
> Emacs grew up on. ISTR Multics, in which case the paper on Multics
> Emacs at multicians.org could shed more light on it.
It was before my time, but I am pretty sure that the first implementation
of Emacs was on ITS, and that the first imlementation popular outside of
MIT was on Twenex, or as most of the world knows it, TOPS-20. Both these
operating systems run on the architecture known as PDP-10, DECSYSTEM-10,
DECSYSTEM-20, and DEC 2060.
Multics on the other hand ran on specially modified GE 645:s, I think.
At the GNU web site, there is something at
http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html, but it lacks any
information where and when it was originally published, and if any
modifications have been made to it. It seems to be the same as
AI lab memo 519A.
There are references in it to
Richard M. Stallman, EMACS Manual for ITS Users, Artificial
Intelligence Lab memo 554, 1980.
Richard M. Stallman, EMACS Manual for TWENEX Users, Artificial
Intelligence Lab memo 555, 1980.
--
Fredrik Stax\"ang | rot13: ····@hcqngr.hh.fr
From: Will Deakin
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <3C56B3EE.4090609@hotmail.com>
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
> I've always considered that phrasing rather poor.
I hope you don't have an inferiority complex...
;)w
In article <··················@nntp.interaccess.com>, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
LOL, good question. Maybe you should ask the maintainers of ilisp ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x42B32FC9
From: Marco Antoniotti
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <y6cadv2kvgd.fsf@octagon.mrl.nyu.edu>
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> In article <··················@nntp.interaccess.com>, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
>
> LOL, good question. Maybe you should ask the maintainers of ilisp ;-)
>
Remember that Emacs is "The Total Application". Anything started form
it (an maybe compared to :) ) is "inferior".
Seriously, whenever you start an "intercative interpreter" within
Emacs, you start an "inferior" process. This applies to any language
and/or shell.
The package that is commonly used for these interactions is called
`comint'.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
"Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <87zo2tdc61.fsf@tunes.org>
Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
>> In article <··················@nntp.interaccess.com>, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>> > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
>> > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
>>
>> LOL, good question. Maybe you should ask the maintainers of ilisp ;-)
>>
>
> Remember that Emacs is "The Total Application". Anything started form
> it (an maybe compared to :) ) is "inferior".
>
> Seriously, whenever you start an "intercative interpreter" within
> Emacs, you start an "inferior" process. This applies to any language
> and/or shell.
>
(pedantically
"~&According to `dict shell' (the FOLDOC entry), the Multics shell~
dynamically linked in the program to be executed, ran it, and unliked~
it. I don't think this would imply inferiority.~%")
#| :) |#
> The package that is commonly used for these interactions is called
> `comint'.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
> NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
> 719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
> New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
> "Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
> Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
From: Brian P Templeton
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <878zaclepm.fsf@tunes.org>
Brian P Templeton <···@tunes.org> writes:
> Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
>> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>>
>>> In article <··················@nntp.interaccess.com>, Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
>>> > Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
>>> > "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
>>>
>>> LOL, good question. Maybe you should ask the maintainers of ilisp ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Remember that Emacs is "The Total Application". Anything started form
>> it (an maybe compared to :) ) is "inferior".
>>
>> Seriously, whenever you start an "intercative interpreter" within
>> Emacs, you start an "inferior" process. This applies to any language
>> and/or shell.
>>
> (pedantically
> "~&According to `dict shell' (the FOLDOC entry), the Multics shell~
> dynamically linked in the program to be executed, ran it, and unliked~
^^^^^^^
s/unliked/unlinked/
You'll have to ask the Multics developers if the tpyo was also correct :)
> it. I don't think this would imply inferiority.~%")
> #| :) |#
>
>> The package that is commonly used for these interactions is called
>> `comint'.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
>> NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
>> 719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
>> New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
>> "Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
>> Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.
>
> --
> BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
> Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
> Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
--
BPT <···@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote in message:
>So what is inferior about these?
This word is really "interior" but the bloke who wrote the original version had
a little lisp...
;)w
From: David Golden
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <kMj48.1402$D6.3923@news.iol.ie>
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> Reading the documentation of ilisp it consistently says things like:
> "starts an inferior lisp". So what is inferior about these?
>
:-)
Really, it's just that the inferior lisp is a child process of the editor,
hence "inferior" to it in the hierarchy of running processes, using the
conventional topsy-turvy computer science mental picture of tree structures.
People usually think of trees-structured data like family trees, with
leaf-nodes/children somehow "on the bottom", rather than like real trees,
with the leaf-node/children somehow"at the top" - no-one has really ever
explained why, though one popular theory is that early printouts of tree
structures would have used the easiest printing algorithm available -
namely, tell the teletype to print the root node, then its children, then
their children, etc. - which would result in a tree printout with the "root"
at the top, and the other popular theory is human's instinctive
dominance-hierarchy recognition coupled with their spatial-importance
recognition, which would somehow place the "root" node at the top, as the
most important.
--
Don't eat yellow snow.
David Golden <············@bprnaserr.arg> wrote in message news:<··················@news.iol.ie>...
> People usually think of trees-structured data like family trees, with
> leaf-nodes/children somehow "on the bottom", rather than like real trees,
> with the leaf-node/children somehow"at the top" - no-one has really ever
> explained why, though one popular theory is that early printouts of tree
> structures would have used the easiest printing algorithm available -
> namely, tell the teletype to print the root node, then its children, then
> their children, etc. - which would result in a tree printout with the "root"
> at the top, and the other popular theory is human's instinctive
> dominance-hierarchy recognition coupled with their spatial-importance
> recognition, which would somehow place the "root" node at the top, as the
> most important.
I believe Knuth discussed this
--
Nick Keighley
some things have to believed to be seen
-- hoyle
·············@marconi.com (Nick Keighley) writes:
> David Golden <············@bprnaserr.arg> wrote in message news:<··················@news.iol.ie>...
>
> > People usually think of trees-structured data like family trees, with
> > leaf-nodes/children somehow "on the bottom", rather than like real trees,
> > with the leaf-node/children somehow"at the top" - no-one has really ever
> > explained why, though one popular theory is that early printouts of tree
> > structures would have used the easiest printing algorithm available -
> > namely, tell the teletype to print the root node, then its children, then
> > their children, etc. - which would result in a tree printout with the "root"
> > at the top, and the other popular theory is human's instinctive
> > dominance-hierarchy recognition coupled with their spatial-importance
> > recognition, which would somehow place the "root" node at the top, as the
> > most important.
>
> I believe Knuth discussed this
I had to laugh when I read this. Uhm, any idea where? He's not
exactly a one-essay-wonder, if you know what I mean...
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
From: Dr. Edmund Weitz
Subject: Re: What's so inferior about CLisp,CMUCL, PersonalWorks, ACL?
Date:
Message-ID: <m3k7u1j7qg.fsf@bird.agharta.de>
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> ·············@marconi.com (Nick Keighley) writes:
>
> > David Golden <············@bprnaserr.arg> wrote in message
> > news:<··················@news.iol.ie>...
> >
> > > People usually think of trees-structured data like family trees,
> > > with leaf-nodes/children somehow "on the bottom", rather than
> > > like real trees, with the leaf-node/children somehow"at the top"
> > > - no-one has really ever explained why, though one popular
> > > theory is that early printouts of tree structures would have
> > > used the easiest printing algorithm available - namely, tell the
> > > teletype to print the root node, then its children, then their
> > > children, etc. - which would result in a tree printout with the
> > > "root" at the top, and the other popular theory is human's
> > > instinctive dominance-hierarchy recognition coupled with their
> > > spatial-importance recognition, which would somehow place the
> > > "root" node at the top, as the most important.
> >
> > I believe Knuth discussed this
>
> I had to laugh when I read this. Uhm, any idea where? He's not
> exactly a one-essay-wonder, if you know what I mean...
:)
On the first three pages of "2.3. Trees" in TAOCP Vol. 1, Third
Edition, he discusses the issue how trees should be drawn. There's
nothing about the teletype theory mentioned above, though.
Edi.