Robin-Louis Clevis <·········@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
It would certainly seem to be possible in principle, maybe even easier
than doing it in many other common languages. I've heard from those
who used the old lisp machines who think they were better than modern
OSs in a myriad ways (I never had the pleasure).
Whether you can do it is another question.
Whether it's worth the immense effort required is yet a third.
Michael
Michael Sullivan <···@panix.com> wrote:
> Robin-Louis Clevis <·········@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>
> It would certainly seem to be possible in principle, maybe even easier
> than doing it in many other common languages.
If you are serious about this, maybe you should consider writing
a small kernel (paging, interrupt handling, disk IO, drivers) in C++
or even "steal" it from Linux or BCD Unix, then do all the usability
and GUI stuff in Lisp.
You probably would not want a garbage collection to happen
in a disk driver or pager.
"Ole Nielsby" <···········@snailmail.dk> writes:
> Michael Sullivan <···@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Robin-Louis Clevis <·········@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>>
>> It would certainly seem to be possible in principle, maybe even easier
>> than doing it in many other common languages.
>
> If you are serious about this, maybe you should consider writing
> a small kernel (paging, interrupt handling, disk IO, drivers) in C++
> or even "steal" it from Linux or BCD Unix, then do all the usability
> and GUI stuff in Lisp.
No. You would implement your kernel on Xen. You'd have to write only
generic drivers for the virtual devices, and you let Xen implement the
physical linux device drivers.
> You probably would not want a garbage collection to happen
> in a disk driver or pager.
First step: port Movitz to Xen.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You can tell the Lisp programmers. They have pockets full of punch
cards with close parentheses on them." --> http://tinyurl.com/8ubpf
From: Robert Strandh
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <6woe312gch.fsf@serveur5.labri.fr>
"Ole Nielsby" <···········@snailmail.dk> writes:
> You probably would not want a garbage collection to happen
> in a disk driver or pager.
This remark seems to suggest that GC necessarily "happens" at a
particular time. However there are incremental GC algorithms that do
not have this particular behavior.
--
Robert Strandh
Microsoft Research is working in something similar to a Lisp Machine:
http://research.microsoft.com/os/singularity/
From: BR
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <43b30fc4@news.mcleodusa.net>
Robert Strandh wrote:
> "Ole Nielsby" <···········@snailmail.dk> writes:
>
>> You probably would not want a garbage collection to happen
>> in a disk driver or pager.
>
> This remark seems to suggest that GC necessarily "happens" at a
> particular time. However there are incremental GC algorithms that do
> not have this particular behavior.
>
That reminds me. How well does GC fit in with large MP architectures?
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <87oe31g7bq.fsf@david-steuber.com>
"Robin-Louis Clevis" <·········@yahoo.ca> writes:
> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
CP/M was a better OS than XP.
You can write anything with assembler + Lisp. C is often used as
assembler substitute to take advantage of C compiler's knowledge of
the target platform.
I am assuming you mean "I" in the general case. I don't know what you
personally are capable of.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
On 27 Dec 2005 23:43:21 -0500, David Steuber <·····@david-steuber.com>
wrote:
>
>CP/M was a better OS than XP.
>
Let's not be unfair ... the severely retarded half implementation of
VMS that is XP is _still_ better than CP/M.
Perhaps you meant MP/M?
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
Sure you can. It has even been done before: Lisp machines. The first
desktop workstations and some of the first use of bitmap screens and
window interfaces.
On 2005-12-27 21:54:09 -0500, "Robin-Louis Clevis" <·········@yahoo.ca> said:
> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
Not nearly as good as Usenet is for writing trolls.
From: Tin Gherdanarra
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <41id13F1eas6nU1@individual.net>
Robin-Louis Clevis wrote:
> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>
You can look at at Brad Parker's emulator for the
CADR lisp machine (of 1980 vintage). It is almost
entirely written in Lisp. You can put pixels on the
screen by stuffing bits into a lisp array using setq.
Here is the link:
http://unlambda.com
There is a strange document that might be along the
lines of your thinking and is fun to read:
http://tunes.org/wiki/Trotskyite_Tunes
The "Movitz" project was mentioned in other replies,
but here is the link:
http://common-lisp.net/project/movitz/
Movitz is not really a lisp-os but a compiler and
toolchest for writing lisp programs for off-the-shelf
Pentium hardware with no support from any
os.
Fare Rideau on the virtues of Lisp machines:
http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html
Writing a lispos is probably difficult because you
have to be a lisp geek AND a bit-twiddling, memory-poking
ASM-head. However, as the folks from the MIT have
shown, it can be done. You can even download their
source code for the CADR lisp machine although
you won't be able to compile it (requires MacLisp,
dead, forgotten).
Beating Windows in terms of features and applications
will be hard, though.
Tin Gherdanarra wrote:
> Robin-Louis Clevis wrote:
> > Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
> >
> You can look at at Brad Parker's emulator for the
> CADR lisp machine (of 1980 vintage). It is almost
> entirely written in Lisp. You can put pixels on the
> screen by stuffing bits into a lisp array using setq.
> Here is the link:
>
> http://unlambda.com
>
> There is a strange document that might be along the
> lines of your thinking and is fun to read:
>
> http://tunes.org/wiki/Trotskyite_Tunes
>
> The "Movitz" project was mentioned in other replies,
> but here is the link:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/movitz/
>
> Movitz is not really a lisp-os but a compiler and
> toolchest for writing lisp programs for off-the-shelf
> Pentium hardware with no support from any
> os.
>
> Fare Rideau on the virtues of Lisp machines:
>
> http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html
>
> Writing a lispos is probably difficult because you
> have to be a lisp geek AND a bit-twiddling, memory-poking
> ASM-head. However, as the folks from the MIT have
> shown, it can be done. You can even download their
> source code for the CADR lisp machine although
> you won't be able to compile it (requires MacLisp,
> dead, forgotten).
>
If you expand the original question to be "can you write low level code
in lisp" have a look at chapter 5 of sicp which covers register
machines... simulating a register machine in scheme, a lisp dialect.
Later it shows how to write a compiler for the machine.
> Beating Windows in terms of features and applications
> will be hard, though.
Tin Gherdanarra wrote:
> Robin-Louis Clevis wrote:
> > Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
> >
> You can look at at Brad Parker's emulator for the
> CADR lisp machine (of 1980 vintage). It is almost
> entirely written in Lisp. You can put pixels on the
> screen by stuffing bits into a lisp array using setq.
> Here is the link:
>
> http://unlambda.com
>
> There is a strange document that might be along the
> lines of your thinking and is fun to read:
>
> http://tunes.org/wiki/Trotskyite_Tunes
>
> The "Movitz" project was mentioned in other replies,
> but here is the link:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/movitz/
>
> Movitz is not really a lisp-os but a compiler and
> toolchest for writing lisp programs for off-the-shelf
> Pentium hardware with no support from any
> os.
>
> Fare Rideau on the virtues of Lisp machines:
>
> http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html
>
> Writing a lispos is probably difficult because you
> have to be a lisp geek AND a bit-twiddling, memory-poking
> ASM-head. However, as the folks from the MIT have
> shown, it can be done. You can even download their
> source code for the CADR lisp machine although
> you won't be able to compile it (requires MacLisp,
> dead, forgotten).
>
If you expand the original question to be "can you write low level code
in lisp" have a look at chapter 5 of sicp which covers register
machines... simulating a register machine in scheme, a lisp dialect.
Later it shows how to write a compiler for the machine.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-30.html#%_chap_5
> Beating Windows in terms of features and applications
> will be hard, though.
>(requires MacLisp, dead, forgotten).
Wait! I'm working on a MacLisp program right now. I have a dedicated
machine running ITS under klh and the MacLisp system runs just fine.
Tin Gherdanarra wrote:
> Robin-Louis Clevis wrote:
>
>> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>>
> You can look at at Brad Parker's emulator for the
> CADR lisp machine (of 1980 vintage). It is almost
> entirely written in Lisp. You can put pixels on the
> screen by stuffing bits into a lisp array using setq.
> Here is the link:
>
> http://unlambda.com
>
> There is a strange document that might be along the
> lines of your thinking and is fun to read:
>
> http://tunes.org/wiki/Trotskyite_Tunes
>
> The "Movitz" project was mentioned in other replies,
> but here is the link:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/movitz/
>
> Movitz is not really a lisp-os but a compiler and
> toolchest for writing lisp programs for off-the-shelf
> Pentium hardware with no support from any
> os.
>
> Fare Rideau on the virtues of Lisp machines:
>
> http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html
>
> Writing a lispos is probably difficult because you
> have to be a lisp geek AND a bit-twiddling, memory-poking
> ASM-head. However, as the folks from the MIT have
> shown, it can be done. You can even download their
> source code for the CADR lisp machine although
> you won't be able to compile it (requires MacLisp,
> dead, forgotten).
>
> Beating Windows in terms of features and applications
> will be hard, though.
I think if you used Movitz as a base platform and coded your operating
system on top of it (using Movitz functions and possibly some linked-in
ASM routines via FFI) you could write a pretty darn good operating
system. In fact, now that I'm learning Common Lisp I'm wishing I'd done
it in the first place.
From: Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <2hzmmh37wt.fsf@vserver.cs.uit.no>
Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> I think if you used Movitz as a base platform and coded your
> operating system on top of it (using Movitz functions and possibly
> some linked-in ASM routines via FFI) you could write a pretty darn
> good operating system.
Movitz happily digests inline assembly, so there's no need to invoke
external assemblers (in fact, substantial parts of movitz are regular
compiler-macros that expand to inline assembly). And, manipulating
assembly-programs in lisp is sort of interesting too.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> You can't write a better OS than XP, period. In Lisp or otherwise.
HAHAHA HAHAHHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHA
Happy new year
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> You can't write a better OS than XP, period. In Lisp or otherwise.
>
Is this guy normally a troll or is he honestly ignoring all the
technical evidence against Windoze XP?
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
>> You can't write a better OS than XP, period. In Lisp or otherwise.
> Is this guy normally a troll or is he honestly ignoring all the
> technical evidence against Windoze XP?
He might be strictly correct.
It is possible that the individual being referred to is not up to the
task of writing a better OS than Windows XP, regardless of language
choice.
Indeed, when questions as nonspecific as "could I write something
better than XP in Lisp?" come up (which lack any indication that the
individual knows what they *want* to build, and its overall
architecture), it seems unlikely that the project will be successful.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write(·@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
When a man talks dirty to a woman, its sexual harassment. When a woman
talks dirty to a man, it's 3.95 per minute.
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <41n58gF1fnerbU1@individual.net>
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> You can't write a better OS than XP, period. In Lisp or otherwise.
That's because there's no better programming language than C++, and
every rewrite of XP would have to emulate C++'s features!
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
People that write their own OSes tend to get stuck because they only
support one or two models of disk interfaces and have only one choice
of graphics hardware.
What you might instead want to try is to let the [Linux|FreeBSD|XOrg]
people cope with the bottom level, and then use Lisp for the "user
level" portions.
That is, in effect, what Symbolics Genera did.
--
"cbbrowne",·@","gmail.com"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
"not red, not light red, but gay-pride triangle, poodle-dress pink."
-- Seen in alt.food.sushi
In article <··············@mobile.int.cbbrowne.com>,
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> wrote:
> > Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>
> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>
> People that write their own OSes tend to get stuck because they only
> support one or two models of disk interfaces and have only one choice
> of graphics hardware.
>
> What you might instead want to try is to let the [Linux|FreeBSD|XOrg]
> people cope with the bottom level, and then use Lisp for the "user
> level" portions.
>
> That is, in effect, what Symbolics Genera did.
I assume you mean 'Open Genera', which runs on top of 'Tru64 Unix'
on DEC/DIGITAL/COMPAQ/HP Alpha. It uses a virtual machine
and has access to disk and network.
In contrast, 'Genera' has supported quite a lot of hardware
natively in its lifetime: Framebuffers, network cards,
graphic cards, consoles, audio, clocks, disks, tapes,
memory boards, SCSI 2, serial I/O, BUS systems (VME, ...)
and so on.
Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>> Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>
> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/
http://www.xensource.com/
The only (temporary) downside of Xen is that it runs only on ix86,
but it's planed to be ported on other processors too.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this
merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic
explosion will result.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>
>
>>>Or is Lisp not good for writing a complete OS + GUI ???
>>
>>The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>
>
> That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
> drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>
> http://wiki.xensource.com/xenwiki/
> http://www.xensource.com/
>
> The only (temporary) downside of Xen is that it runs only on ix86,
> but it's planed to be ported on other processors too.
>
What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone what
projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God. Contrary to
what naysayers think nowadays, there is still every reason to write a
new OS for native hardware rather than virtualization.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>
>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>
>> That's why you won't be doing it.
>>
> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone what
> projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God. Contrary to
> what naysayers think nowadays, there is still every reason to write a
> new OS for native hardware rather than virtualization.
You won't be doing it, either.
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's why you won't be doing it.
>>>
>> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>> what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>> Contrary to what naysayers think nowadays, there is still every reason
>> to write a new OS for native hardware rather than virtualization.
>
>
> You won't be doing it, either.
>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/glider-kernel
I am.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
>> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>
>>>> That's why you won't be doing it.
>>>>
>>> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>> what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>>> Contrary to what naysayers think nowadays, there is still every
>>> reason to write a new OS for native hardware rather than virtualization.
>>
>> You won't be doing it, either.
>>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/glider-kernel
>
> I am.
You am what? Writing a better OS than Windows XP? Supporting numerous
variations of hardware and peripherals?
I've no quarrel with developing new operating systems, but anybody who
doesn't have a marketing plan and bait to entice free developers (or a
corporate sponsor funding said new operating system, and preferably
both) is merely going to end up with three device drivers and an
incomplete, buggy TCP/IP stack, best case.
You've chosen to invest only a nickel's worth of programming language
technology into your project, and have parked it at the domain most
likely to indicate abandoned, incomplete works whose most functional
component is the copyright notice. Forgive my lack of faith.
But hey, by all means, prove me wrong in my low expectations.
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <421kjoF1g6ehgU1@individual.net>
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> You am what? Writing a better OS than Windows XP? Supporting numerous
> variations of hardware and peripherals?
After the user has searched, downloaded, and installed all the
vendor-specific drivers that are usually NOT bundled with XP itself? I
don't use it anymore, but I uploaded some data to my cellphone, went to
a friend, plugged in my USB-Bluetooth dongle, and ... nothing. Now
that's not what I expect from a mainstream operating system.
> I've no quarrel with developing new operating systems, but anybody who
> doesn't have a marketing plan and bait to entice free developers (or a
> corporate sponsor funding said new operating system, and preferably
> both) is merely going to end up with three device drivers and an
> incomplete, buggy TCP/IP stack, best case.
Who says you can't write a driver loader that can load Linux modules, or
Windows drivers? Actually, the latter might be more useful, but as I
mentioned above, not without problems, either.
ALso, OSes can be device-specific, especially in the laptop/smartphone
range, where memory is scarce.
> You've chosen to invest only a nickel's worth of programming language
> technology into your project, and have parked it at the domain most
> likely to indicate abandoned, incomplete works whose most functional
> component is the copyright notice. Forgive my lack of faith.
>
> But hey, by all means, prove me wrong in my low expectations.
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>
>> Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Browne <········@acm.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why you won't be doing it.
>>>>>
>>>> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>>> what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>>>> Contrary to what naysayers think nowadays, there is still every
>>>> reason to write a new OS for native hardware rather than
>>>> virtualization.
>>>
>>>
>>> You won't be doing it, either.
>>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/glider-kernel
>>
>> I am.
>
>
> You am what? Writing a better OS than Windows XP? Supporting numerous
> variations of hardware and peripherals?
>
> I've no quarrel with developing new operating systems, but anybody who
> doesn't have a marketing plan and bait to entice free developers (or a
> corporate sponsor funding said new operating system, and preferably
> both) is merely going to end up with three device drivers and an
> incomplete, buggy TCP/IP stack, best case.
>
> You've chosen to invest only a nickel's worth of programming language
> technology into your project, and have parked it at the domain most
> likely to indicate abandoned, incomplete works whose most functional
> component is the copyright notice. Forgive my lack of faith.
>
> But hey, by all means, prove me wrong in my low expectations.
I'm writing an OS that runs on native hardware rather than on top of
Xen. On the other hand, if it's that useful I could write device
drivers for virtual devices. I'm also going to support UDI so at the
very least other people can use the drivers I write if this project dies.
If you think I need a marketing plan to attract funding or developers,
you come up with one! I've never been that good at lying to or
manipulating people, so I tend to stay away from marketing. At the very
least, be kind enough to tell me which Usenet newsgroup I should
announce on. I'm currently subscribed to alt.os.development.
"Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean the
fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a C-equivalent
language that dares not to be C?
Speaking of Lisp, the first program I was planning to port was an
interpreter, which would be given FFI access to system calls and UDI.
But hey, why should I put in the effort for a project so unlikely to
attract corporate funding?
I also ask you where I might find web hosting for my project other than
Sourceforge. Unfortunately, I don't have any boxes on me suitable for
being a webserver and CVS server, nor do I have the class of ISP access
necessary for decent webserving. Make your suggestions now.
As for "buggy and incomplete", you might wish to check the CVS
repository and file releases. The kernel is quite nearly ready to
actually run programs in user space after 6 months; I'm currently
testing and debugging the most important feature. When that's done it's
time to port an ELF loader and put real software on the thing.
I sense a flame war coming.
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <4226tkF1grp6bU1@individual.net>
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> If you think I need a marketing plan to attract funding or developers,
> you come up with one! I've never been that good at lying to or
> manipulating people, so I tend to stay away from marketing. At the very
> least, be kind enough to tell me which Usenet newsgroup I should
> announce on. I'm currently subscribed to alt.os.development.
Ok, this is increasingly OT, but let me add that Marketing isn't about
manipulating people, or about lying to them. In fact that's not at all
important, even though it might help some crappy companies sell their
stuff nonetheless.
In case you're interested, I recommend Philip Kotler's "Marketing
Management".
> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean the
> fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a C-equivalent
> language that dares not to be C?
I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <42273nF1grp6bU2@individual.net>
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean the
>> fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a
>> C-equivalent language that dares not to be C?
>
> I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
interested then ;)
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>>> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean the
>>> fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a
>>> C-equivalent language that dares not to be C?
>>
>>
>> I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
>
>
> Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
> interested then ;)
>
What is so bad about Pascal that everyone disses it? Modern compilers
(GPC, Delphi/Kylix and FPC are pretty much the only ones) give you a
language that is just like C, but prettier to look at and with a couple
of language features that require heap support.
Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>
>>>> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean
>>>> the fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a
>>>> C-equivalent language that dares not to be C?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
>> Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
>> interested then ;)
>>
> What is so bad about Pascal that everyone disses it?
Strictly nothing!
> Modern compilers
> (GPC, Delphi/Kylix and FPC are pretty much the only ones) give you a
> language that is just like C, but prettier to look at and with a
> couple of language features that require heap support.
Unix clones were written in Pascal long before linux.
The MacOS toolbox, and the QuickDraw prototype were written in Pascal.
I'd bet there's code in Carbon that's still compiled from Pascal.
In anycase, a lot of MacOS applications were written in Pascal.
The only difference is that Pascal was invented in Europe, while C in the USA.
By the same token Prolog gets a worse reputation than Lisp,
Ada than COBOL, and Airbus than Boeing, etc. >;-}
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
NEW GRAND UNIFIED THEORY DISCLAIMER: The manufacturer may
technically be entitled to claim that this product is
ten-dimensional. However, the consumer is reminded that this
confers no legal rights above and beyond those applicable to
three-dimensional objects, since the seven new dimensions are
"rolled up" into such a small "area" that they cannot be
detected.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> >> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> >>
> >>>> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean
> >>>> the fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a
> >>>> C-equivalent language that dares not to be C?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
> >> Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
> >> interested then ;)
> >>
> > What is so bad about Pascal that everyone disses it?
>
> Strictly nothing!
>
One complaint about Pascal is that you cannot implement 'writeln' and
'readln' in Pascal. They are functions which take a variable number of
arguments, but the language doesn't support the user writing this.
Another complaint is that it doesn't support modularity. I know that
some dialects have extensions for this, but the original language
definiton did not. The listing of the CDC Pascal compiler that I have
from the middle '70s is one big honkin' program listing/file (hmmm, I
wonder if that would be worth anything on e-bay?) Change one line in
the compiler and the whole thing would have to be recompiled.
Yet another issue is that it doesn't support pointers to arbitrary
addresses. Again, some dialects handle this, but it isn't in the
original language spec (I'm obviously dating myself here). Device
drivers require this feature.
The strong typing of arrays makes string processing more crufty than in
other languages, IMO.
BTW, I did get a chuckle out of "Nickel's worth of programming
technology", especially since this veered off into a discussion about
Pascal. But I guess one needs to know the old chestnut about how one
pronounces Wirth's name.
[...]
····@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
> Another complaint is that it doesn't support modularity. I know that
> some dialects have extensions for this, but the original language
> definiton did not.
Why do you compare the original language definition of Pascal with
later definitions of C or other languages? Try to compare it with B!
> Yet another issue is that it doesn't support pointers to arbitrary
> addresses. Again, some dialects handle this, but it isn't in the
> original language spec (I'm obviously dating myself here). Device
> drivers require this feature.
You cannot do random pointers in Lisp but you still seem to be
interested in Lisp though...
> The strong typing of arrays makes string processing more crufty than in
> other languages, IMO.
Still speaking of Pascal 1970? Compare it with LISP 1958! (And forget
about C, it didn't exist in 1970)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In deep sleep hear sound,
Cat vomit hairball somewhere.
Will find in morning.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> ····@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
> > Another complaint is that it doesn't support modularity. I know that
> > some dialects have extensions for this, but the original language
> > definiton did not.
>
> Why do you compare the original language definition of Pascal with
> later definitions of C or other languages? Try to compare it with B!
>
I first learned BASIC, then FORTRAN, then H-P 2100 assembly, then
Pascal. All three supported modularity so it left an impression on me
when changing one line in the Pascal compiler required a re-compile of
the whole thing.
>
> > Yet another issue is that it doesn't support pointers to arbitrary
> > addresses. Again, some dialects handle this, but it isn't in the
> > original language spec (I'm obviously dating myself here). Device
> > drivers require this feature.
>
> You cannot do random pointers in Lisp but you still seem to be
> interested in Lisp though...
>
I'm interested in a lot of languages, regardless of what I think their
shortcomings are.
>
> > The strong typing of arrays makes string processing more crufty than in
> > other languages, IMO.
>
> Still speaking of Pascal 1970? Compare it with LISP 1958! (And forget
> about C, it didn't exist in 1970)
Or I could compare it to SNOBOL from the 60's. I loved SNOBOL. ;-)
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <4246u1F1graipU1@individual.net>
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> ····@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>> Another complaint is that it doesn't support modularity. I know that
>> some dialects have extensions for this, but the original language
>> definiton did not.
>
> Why do you compare the original language definition of Pascal with
> later definitions of C or other languages? Try to compare it with B!
Maybe, it makes the point even better. Doesn't B have a very loose type
system, so it's not much more than assembly? Pascal has a strong type
system, but very verbose and IMHO it'd get in the way (compared to
something like SML).
>> The strong typing of arrays makes string processing more crufty than in
>> other languages, IMO.
>
> Still speaking of Pascal 1970? Compare it with LISP 1958! (And forget
> about C, it didn't exist in 1970)
Did later Pascals leave out all strong array typing?
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> ····@stablecross.com (Bob Felts) writes:
>
>>Another complaint is that it doesn't support modularity. I know that
>>some dialects have extensions for this, but the original language
>>definiton did not.
>
>
> Why do you compare the original language definition of Pascal with
> later definitions of C or other languages? Try to compare it with B!
>
>
>
>>Yet another issue is that it doesn't support pointers to arbitrary
>>addresses. Again, some dialects handle this, but it isn't in the
>>original language spec (I'm obviously dating myself here). Device
>>drivers require this feature.
>
>
> You cannot do random pointers in Lisp but you still seem to be
> interested in Lisp though...
>
>
>
>>The strong typing of arrays makes string processing more crufty than in
>>other languages, IMO.
>
>
> Still speaking of Pascal 1970? Compare it with LISP 1958! (And forget
> about C, it didn't exist in 1970)
>
>
Why is it that nobody seems to even acknowledge the existence of modern
Pascal? Nowadays the good features are in every "dialect" in existence,
and can therefore be considered standard language features.
Modern Pascal has unit files that let you stick a bunch of code, data
and an interface to it all into a single file and compile that on its
own to a single object file.
Modern Pascal has arbitrary typed and untyped pointers. I do memory
access in it all the time (though it's only slightly less aggravating
than doing the same work in C).
Modern Pascal still uses strong typing of arrays, but if you want to do
string processing Modern Pascal has first-class string types.
Modern Pascal also has control structures equivalent to every structure
seen in C, except for more arcane uses of for and while.
The verbosity, however, is a matter of preference that I can't argue with.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Why is it that nobody seems to even acknowledge the existence of ------
> ------?
People *here* see nothing to convince themselves that "------ ------"
(whatever that is) is superior to Lisp in any manner. We see Lisp as the
better of the pair for any metric you'd care to mention. In fact, we see
only negligible differences in expressivity between your ------ ------
and C. As C is vastly more popular, there seems little reason save
deliberate obscurity to choose your language over C, never mind over Lisp.
Go preach in comp.lang.fortran. Maybe they'll be impressed that you've
chosen a language that makes writing boot loaders tractable.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s20pmjmfpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:48:39 +0100, Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Why is it that nobody seems to even acknowledge the existence of modern
> Pascal? Nowadays the good features are in every "dialect" in existence,
> and can therefore be considered standard language features.
>
> Modern Pascal has unit files that let you stick a bunch of code, data
> and an interface to it all into a single file and compile that on its
> own to a single object file.
>
> Modern Pascal has arbitrary typed and untyped pointers. I do memory
> access in it all the time (though it's only slightly less aggravating
> than doing the same work in C).
>
> Modern Pascal still uses strong typing of arrays, but if you want to do
> string processing Modern Pascal has first-class string types.
>
> Modern Pascal also has control structures equivalent to every structure
> seen in C, except for more arcane uses of for and while.
>
> The verbosity, however, is a matter of preference that I can't argue
> with.
Perhaps it is your idea of standard.
They are in fact relating to the standard and not the implementation
you are using (Delphi?).
The tend to do the same to BASIC. (as might you..)
As I mentioned earlier this is a lisp group..
You'll find better moral support on comp.lang.pascal I am sure.
I think it is fully possible to implement a OS in Pascal.
It is not evident to me what the advantages would be.
But then I have hardly programmed Pascal since 1990.
I jumped over to C and then C++ and never looked back.
To me that was liberating..
When I turned to want a way to use my time more productivly
I turned to Lisp. I took many years to begin to get the C
way of thinking out of my blood but now I quite enjoy it.
By the way I don't like Java much.. I am sure there are
hundreds dreaming of a Java processor and Java OS as well..
But OS's are about design not language. Do you really care about OS
technology enough? Only you can answer that.
Just my two bits.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:48:39 +0100, Eli Gottlieb
> <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is it that nobody seems to even acknowledge the existence of
>> modern Pascal? Nowadays the good features are in every "dialect" in
>> existence, and can therefore be considered standard language features.
>>
>> Modern Pascal has unit files that let you stick a bunch of code, data
>> and an interface to it all into a single file and compile that on its
>> own to a single object file.
>>
>> Modern Pascal has arbitrary typed and untyped pointers. I do memory
>> access in it all the time (though it's only slightly less aggravating
>> than doing the same work in C).
>>
>> Modern Pascal still uses strong typing of arrays, but if you want to
>> do string processing Modern Pascal has first-class string types.
>>
>> Modern Pascal also has control structures equivalent to every
>> structure seen in C, except for more arcane uses of for and while.
>>
>> The verbosity, however, is a matter of preference that I can't argue
>> with.
>
>
> Perhaps it is your idea of standard.
> They are in fact relating to the standard and not the implementation
> you are using (Delphi?).
> The tend to do the same to BASIC. (as might you..)
> As I mentioned earlier this is a lisp group..
> You'll find better moral support on comp.lang.pascal I am sure.
> I think it is fully possible to implement a OS in Pascal.
> It is not evident to me what the advantages would be.
> But then I have hardly programmed Pascal since 1990.
> I jumped over to C and then C++ and never looked back.
> To me that was liberating..
> When I turned to want a way to use my time more productivly
> I turned to Lisp. I took many years to begin to get the C
> way of thinking out of my blood but now I quite enjoy it.
> By the way I don't like Java much.. I am sure there are
> hundreds dreaming of a Java processor and Java OS as well..
> But OS's are about design not language. Do you really care about OS
> technology enough? Only you can answer that.
> Just my two bits.
>
So you get to rip on a de jure 20-30 year old language standard,
associate that with the language itself, and then when I talk about the
de facto standard followed by EVERY implementation today you claim that
all the good stuff is implementation specific? *cough*BULL!*cough*
Should I insult Lisp because strings aren't even included in the
Language Standard up until Common Lisp, which isn't even 100%
implemented by most interpreters? No, because the extremely large
subset of Common Lisp which most interpreters do implement is a de facto
standard which includes strings.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s20t8ndbpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:44:13 +0100, Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Should I insult Lisp because strings aren't even included in the
> Language Standard up until Common Lisp, which isn't even 100%
> implemented by most interpreters? No, because the extremely large
> subset of Common Lisp which most interpreters do implement is a de facto
> standard which includes strings.
lol. If you like. I personally find Common Lisp kinda ugly for reasons I
won't go into details about. As few hints.. Multiple name spaces,
destructive and non-destructive operations, inconsistent naming,
ellusive conterintuetive features (setq vs. set) and so forth.
It's a beast, but it's my beast like C++ before it.
I put up with it because it is powerfull and (to some extent because of
some of the 'ugly' features) reasonably fast.
I am sorry if I insulted you however. I just present things from my
view and I am not a great Pascal fan. In this line of languages I
prefer ADA. Well some like the daughter and some like the mother..
You are missing the fact that there is a ANSI standard for Common Lisp.
Just like there is one for C++ and ADA.
My biggest grievence is that there is no Pascal-98 standard or something
like that.
There are currently 3 different documents that can be classified as
Pascal standards: Unextended Pascal, Extended Pascal, and the
Object-Oriented Extensions to Pascal..
The unextended Pascal standard (ISO 7185 : 1990) is still in force as
a valid ISO language standard.
While it is certainly true that a standard does no good if you cannot find
anyone who makes product according to it, using a non-standard Pascal
puts you at the mercy of the compiler maker for that dialect.
For instance there are compatabillity issues with Borland
Pascal/Delphi/Kylix
with relation to those standards.
http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/ansiiso.faq
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:44:13 +0100, Eli Gottlieb
> <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Should I insult Lisp because strings aren't even included in the
>> Language Standard up until Common Lisp, which isn't even 100%
>> implemented by most interpreters? No, because the extremely large
>> subset of Common Lisp which most interpreters do implement is a de
>> facto standard which includes strings.
>
>
> lol. If you like. I personally find Common Lisp kinda ugly for reasons I
> won't go into details about. As few hints.. Multiple name spaces,
> destructive and non-destructive operations, inconsistent naming,
> ellusive conterintuetive features (setq vs. set) and so forth.
> It's a beast, but it's my beast like C++ before it.
> I put up with it because it is powerfull and (to some extent because of
> some of the 'ugly' features) reasonably fast.
>
> I am sorry if I insulted you however. I just present things from my
> view and I am not a great Pascal fan. In this line of languages I
> prefer ADA. Well some like the daughter and some like the mother..
>
> You are missing the fact that there is a ANSI standard for Common Lisp.
> Just like there is one for C++ and ADA.
> My biggest grievence is that there is no Pascal-98 standard or
> something like that.
>
> There are currently 3 different documents that can be classified as
> Pascal standards: Unextended Pascal, Extended Pascal, and the
> Object-Oriented Extensions to Pascal..
> The unextended Pascal standard (ISO 7185 : 1990) is still in force as
> a valid ISO language standard.
> While it is certainly true that a standard does no good if you cannot find
> anyone who makes product according to it, using a non-standard Pascal
> puts you at the mercy of the compiler maker for that dialect.
>
> For instance there are compatabillity issues with Borland
> Pascal/Delphi/Kylix
> with relation to those standards.
>
> http://www.moorecad.com/standardpascal/ansiiso.faq
>
Users of modern Pascal dialects really would be at the mercy of compiler
writers (mostly Borland) if there weren't two different Free Software
compilers, both of which implement several different dialect modes.
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <42330mF1h657rU1@individual.net>
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>> Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
>> interested then ;)
>>
> What is so bad about Pascal that everyone disses it? Modern compilers
> (GPC, Delphi/Kylix and FPC are pretty much the only ones) give you a
> language that is just like C, but prettier to look at and with a couple
> of language features that require heap support.
No, I didn't mean to imply that Pascal is bad, but I don't like it too
much. It's too verbose for my taste, and most versions didn't have the
flexibility of C. I think it also suffers from similar lack of choice
in control flow structures (unlike Lisp), that I think a C replacement
would have to bring an end to.
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s2vvnsg2pqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:53:16 +0100, Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>
>>>> "Nickel's worth of progamming language technology"? Ah, you mean the
>>>> fact that I'm not using Lisp? Or the fact that I'm using a
>>>> C-equivalent language that dares not to be C?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm always interested in C replacements. Any public information?
>> Sorry. I just saw it's being done in Pascal. I guess I'm not
>> interested then ;)
>>
> What is so bad about Pascal that everyone disses it? Modern compilers
> (GPC, Delphi/Kylix and FPC are pretty much the only ones) give you a
> language that is just like C, but prettier to look at and with a couple
> of language features that require heap support.
The reason I would want Pascal rather than C would be type safety.
But the I would have a problem with pointers.
Fixing this like in Turbo Pascal etc. give a pointer with even less
type safety than C++. Then the control structures are to limited.
The fix this is a rather ad hoc affair. {I-} etc.
I must admit it has been a while since I wrote much in Pascal.
To me the choice would probably be Ada. Based on Pascal, more control
structures, support for modular programming, garbage collection etc.
This is also the path chosen for millitary and ESA who use this
to also to construct safe OS'es.
Or.. You could write one in Lisp.
Given that this is a Lisp newsgroup the fact that the idea of writing
a OS in Pascal get's a rather luke warm reception is hardly suprising.
Still I wounder if you know have got yourself into.
XP is not a terrible operating system.
NT's core was designed by a group of people brought in from DEC when
they cancelled the design of their PRISM OS. The collectivly brought more
than 200 years of experience in designing multiuser multitasking
operating systems. Can you compete with that?
The core of linux may well have been designed more or less by
one person but then he based it on UNIX and in particular the Posix
standard. All he really had to do is follow the recipie and he
would be more or less guarantied to get a working OS.
Preceding this is more than 20 years of incremental developement by
hundreds of people.
One of the reason's NT is slower is that they started at a high
level of ambition rather than start simple end incrementally improve.
This put's a much higher load on organization.
Like NT has a central DB for storing OS data. This gives some overhead
which makes NT a bit slower. This is particularly obvious when you look
at process management. Going into detail here would probably be wrong.
This book has plenty of detail: 'Microsoft Windows Internals'
http://book.itzero.com/read/microsoft/0507/
Microsoft.Press.Microsoft.Windows.Internals.Fourth.Edition.Dec.2004.internal.eBook-DDU_html/
Well if you get serious.. Good luck! You'll need it...
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
> In case you're interested, I recommend Philip Kotler's "Marketing
> Management".
It looks a little pricey and academic for me. Got any other ideas on
stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <42fpifF1iq308U1@individual.net>
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
>> In case you're interested, I recommend Philip Kotler's "Marketing
>> Management".
> It looks a little pricey and academic for me. Got any other ideas on
> stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?
Well, it's about being in marketing, for the most part, even though the
principles are quite general.
If you want to get attention for your OS project (I don't know what the
word "hock" means, couldn't find it anywhere), I'd say, go for the usual
channels/newsgroups and work with potential users. Of course most
people will only be interested if the OS offers something to begin with.
I think most pet OSes are only interesting to a small group of OS
hacking enthusiasts, and even then they might only be interested in
interesting mechanisms of how to implement a feature, or in interesting
policies, how you solve problems or manage features that the OS kernel
provides. Maybe the OS philosophy (like, namespaces for Plan 9, or
communating kernel threads in Dragonfly BSD).
If you aren't interested in professional/industrial marketing, I don't
think you have to read a book; it's mostly common sense. Or maybe grab
an introductory one at some library.
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
"Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message ····················@individual.net...
> Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
>>> In case you're interested, I recommend Philip Kotler's "Marketing Management".
>> It looks a little pricey and academic for me. Got any other ideas on stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?
>
> Well, it's about being in marketing, for the most part, even though the principles are quite general.
>
> If you want to get attention for your OS project (I don't know what the word "hock" means, couldn't find it anywhere), I'd say, go
> for the usual channels/newsgroups and work with potential users.
'Hock' means to pawn, as in going to a pawn shop. As a noun it means
'debt' as in, "I'm deep in hock to the bank." He probably meant 'hawk'
which means to sell, usually in the street.
--
Geoff
Geoffrey Summerhayes wrote:
> "Ulrich Hobelmann" <···········@web.de> wrote in message ····················@individual.net...
>
>>Eli Gottlieb wrote:
>>
>>>Ulrich Hobelmann wrote
>>>
>>>>In case you're interested, I recommend Philip Kotler's "Marketing Management".
>>>
>>>It looks a little pricey and academic for me. Got any other ideas on stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?
>>
>>Well, it's about being in marketing, for the most part, even though the principles are quite general.
>>
>>If you want to get attention for your OS project (I don't know what the word "hock" means, couldn't find it anywhere), I'd say, go
>>for the usual channels/newsgroups and work with potential users.
>
>
> 'Hock' means to pawn, as in going to a pawn shop. As a noun it means
> 'debt' as in, "I'm deep in hock to the bank." He probably meant 'hawk'
> which means to sell, usually in the street.
>
> --
> Geoff
>
>
I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy
salesman". This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one
does with the pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
"Eli Gottlieb" <···········@gmail.com> wrote in message
·························@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Geoffrey Summerhayes wrote:
>>
>> 'Hock' means to pawn, as in going to a pawn shop. As a noun it means
>> 'debt' as in, "I'm deep in hock to the bank." He probably meant 'hawk'
>> which means to sell, usually in the street.
>>
>
> I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy salesman".
> This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one does with the
> pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
I'll stick by my post because I can't find a dictionary
that backs up your interpretation.
--
Geoff
Geoffrey Summerhayes wrote:
> "Eli Gottlieb" <···········@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ·························@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
>>Geoffrey Summerhayes wrote:
>>
>>>'Hock' means to pawn, as in going to a pawn shop. As a noun it means
>>>'debt' as in, "I'm deep in hock to the bank." He probably meant 'hawk'
>>>which means to sell, usually in the street.
>>>
>>
>>I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy salesman".
>>This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one does with the
>>pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
>
>
> I'll stick by my post because I can't find a dictionary
> that backs up your interpretation.
>
> --
> Geoff
>
>
Colloquialisms are supposed to be in the dictionary now? AFAIK "hock"
isn't even native English. It got adapted from somewhere else.
>From www.m-w.com
hock
Function: transitive verb
: PAWN
- hock·er noun
pawn
Function: transitive verb
: to deposit in pledge or as security
hawk
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from hawker
: to offer for sale by calling out in the street <hawking newspapers>;
broadly : SELL
It isn't a colloquialism, it's a spelling mistake.
----
Geoff
From: Zach Beane
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <m3y81ndh6l.fsf@unnamed.xach.com>
Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
[on "hock"]
> I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy
> salesman". This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one
> does with the pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
The word is spelled "hawk" in this context.
Zach
On 2006-01-10 10:02:08 -0500, Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> said:
> I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy
> salesman". This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one
> does with the pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
I think the right word here is "hawk" which means to peddle.
"Hock" as a slang term comes from Yiddish, and means to nag or to talk
at someone endlessly. It comes from the Yiddish expression “Hak mir
nisht (k)en tshaynik,” (transliterations differ widely in spelling -
hock, hak, chinik, tschaynik) which means literally "Don't bang me no
tea kettle," i.e., "Don't rattle like an empty tea kettle," which is to
say "stop yammering." It is now commonly used as "hock" alone as in
"stop hocking me!" meaning "stop nagging me."
The fact that Yiddish "hock" sounds identical to the slang term for
pawning an item may have contributed to your confusion.
In any event, your original usage was:
"Got any other ideas on stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?"
and one doesn't nag a project, one peddles it.
regards,
Ralph
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2006-01-10 10:02:08 -0500, Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> said:
>
>> I meant more along the lines of "to push; to sell like a pushy
>> salesman". This would have gone under "hock" by analogy of what one
>> does with the pawnshop owner, ie: haggle and be pushy.
>
>
> I think the right word here is "hawk" which means to peddle.
>
> "Hock" as a slang term comes from Yiddish, and means to nag or to talk
> at someone endlessly. It comes from the Yiddish expression “Hak mir
> nisht (k)en tshaynik,” (transliterations differ widely in spelling -
> hock, hak, chinik, tschaynik) which means literally "Don't bang me no
> tea kettle," i.e., "Don't rattle like an empty tea kettle," which is to
> say "stop yammering." It is now commonly used as "hock" alone as in
> "stop hocking me!" meaning "stop nagging me."
>
> The fact that Yiddish "hock" sounds identical to the slang term for
> pawning an item may have contributed to your confusion.
>
> In any event, your original usage was:
> "Got any other ideas on stuff to read if you hope to hock a project?"
>
> and one doesn't nag a project, one peddles it.
>
> regards,
>
> Ralph
>
It was my fault and my confusion. I grew up with a mother who speaks
some Yiddish and a fluent grandmother, so the two meanings ended up
synonymous for me, ie: to "hock" something would be to peddle it
insistantly like a door-to-door salesman.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <m31wzpvxo2.fsf@4dv.net>
Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>
>> That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>> drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>
> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
> what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
future imperfect...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
A horse will usually shy from a plastic bin-liner in a hedge.
I don't know why; maybe tigers used to go around dressed in
bin-liners or something once. --Dan Holdsworth
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>
>>>That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>>>drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>>
>>What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>
>
> Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
> native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
> future imperfect...
>
English is my native language. However, the comment "sounded" like
imperative to me. The reason for this is that in colloquial American
English (at least where I live) the wording of the future imperfect is
taken to mean the imperative, especially when used by one in authority.
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqystslh.fsf@4dv.net>
Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>>The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>>involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>>variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>
>>>>That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>>>>drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>>>
>>>What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>>what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>> Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
>> native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>> future imperfect...
>>
> English is my native language.
Never mind then;-)
> However, the comment "sounded" like imperative to me. The reason for
> this is that in colloquial American English (at least where I live)
> the wording of the future imperfect is taken to mean the imperative,
> especially when used by one in authority.
Well, I grew up in Virginia, was raised by Texans, educated by
Pennsylvanians, went to college in Texas and live in Colorado and my
reading of the sentence was not as an imperative. Perhaps it's a
regional variation that Pascal (a Frog, IIRC) may have picked up without
realising that it's not a universal idiom?
From the context, anyway, I read his comment as 'But one wouldn't be
doing that drudge-work; one would be building upon the work of others.'
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Once upon a time, I made the mistake of following my boss there while I
was fasting. `Do you have any soft drinks?' I asked. `"We've got
Old Hooky,' said the landlord, `that's only 3%...'
--Simon Cozens
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>>The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>>>involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>>>variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>>>>>drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>>>>
>>>>What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>>>what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>>> Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
>>> native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>>> future imperfect...
>>>
>> English is my native language.
>
> Never mind then;-)
>
>> However, the comment "sounded" like imperative to me. The reason for
>> this is that in colloquial American English (at least where I live)
>> the wording of the future imperfect is taken to mean the imperative,
>> especially when used by one in authority.
>
> Well, I grew up in Virginia, was raised by Texans, educated by
> Pennsylvanians, went to college in Texas and live in Colorado and my
> reading of the sentence was not as an imperative. Perhaps it's a
> regional variation that Pascal (a Frog, IIRC) may have picked up without
> realising that it's not a universal idiom?
>
> From the context, anyway, I read his comment as 'But one wouldn't be
> doing that drudge-work; one would be building upon the work of others.'
If this could stop this OT subthread: Yes, this is exactly what I meant.
Others than Robert and Kenny, please note that I didn't write "Don't do it.".
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
What is this talk of 'release'? Klingons do not make software 'releases'.
Our software 'escapes' leaving a bloody trail of designers and quality
assurance people in it's wake.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>>>>involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>>>>variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>>>>>>drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>>>>what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>>>>
>>>>Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
>>>>native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>>>>future imperfect...
>>>>
>>>
>>>English is my native language.
>>
>>Never mind then;-)
>>
>>
>>>However, the comment "sounded" like imperative to me. The reason for
>>>this is that in colloquial American English (at least where I live)
>>>the wording of the future imperfect is taken to mean the imperative,
>>>especially when used by one in authority.
>>
>>Well, I grew up in Virginia, was raised by Texans, educated by
>>Pennsylvanians, went to college in Texas and live in Colorado and my
>>reading of the sentence was not as an imperative. Perhaps it's a
>>regional variation that Pascal (a Frog, IIRC) may have picked up without
>>realising that it's not a universal idiom?
>>
>>From the context, anyway, I read his comment as 'But one wouldn't be
>>doing that drudge-work; one would be building upon the work of others.'
>
>
> If this could stop this OT subthread: Yes, this is exactly what I meant.
>
> Others than Robert and Kenny, please note that I didn't write "Don't do it.".
>
>
OK, my bad.
Eli Gottlieb wrote:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>
>> Eli Gottlieb <···········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> The trouble with writing the "base level" of the OS is that it
>>>>> involves enormously-fiddly fiddling around to support the numerous
>>>>> variations of IDE, SATA, USB hardware as well as the graphics cards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's why you won't be doing it. You'll just support the virtual
>>>> drivers of Xen, one of each kind, and write a Lisp OS running on Xen.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is this "you won't"? One: you've got no right to tell someone
>>> what projects to embark upon or not, and two: Xen is not God.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is English your first language? I don't ask this rudely, but as a
>> native speaker I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>> future imperfect...
>>
> English is my native language. However, the comment "sounded" like
> imperative to me. The reason for this is that in colloquial American
> English (at least where I live) the wording of the future imperfect is
> taken to mean the imperative, especially when used by one in authority.
OK, so now you have two reasons to parse it as non-imperative: (a) this
is Usenet, where not a lot of people come to get their marching orders;
and (b) no one is in authority, in general, and especially over you, who
Pascal (I guess) does not even know. So a plausibility gate should have
filtered out the imperative ... did for me anyway.
FWIW, I parsed it as a prediction, in which I further parsed "you" to be
non-specific, again since Pascal does not know you or know of
Glider-kernel (Pascal? wow!) So my guess would be...
"That is why I do not think that is the way to go. Instead, build
on Xen."
kt
On 2006-01-03 20:55:41 +0000, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> said:
> I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
> future imperfect...
I am _not_ a native speaker, but references to some tense
as a future IMperfect is complete news to me! (apart from
Startrek, of course :-)
Neither this:
http://www.world-english.org/englishtenses.htm
nor this:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_seqtense.html
or this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense
seem to know of such a beast either ...
--
JFB
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <420c0qF1fulcaU1@individual.net>
verec wrote:
> On 2006-01-03 20:55:41 +0000, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> said:
>
>> I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>> future imperfect...
>
> I am _not_ a native speaker, but references to some tense
> as a future IMperfect is complete news to me! (apart from
> Startrek, of course :-)
I'm also non-native, but there's a future imperfect in most languages
(well, Latin and (some?) derivatives, German, English ...). But the
"you won't be doing it" doesn't look like future imperfect to me, but
like a future infinitive (or gerund or something like that; INAN
language expert). The other sentence in Eli's comment is simple, plain,
future.
> Neither this:
> http://www.world-english.org/englishtenses.htm
> nor this:
> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_seqtense.html
> or this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense
>
> seem to know of such a beast either ...
Hm, I don't want to look through all those pages right now, but the
future imperfect is sometimes called future 2 or other weird names (just
like modern teachers use terms like direct and indirect objects, or
terms like conjunctive 1&2, just to confuse me, when a precise term
would be so much easier to understand). It looks like "after immense
efforts you will have written a very cool system". Ok, maybe I should
call it future perfect, not imperfect...
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <m33bk4tscw.fsf@4dv.net>
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
> Hm, I don't want to look through all those pages right now, but the
> future imperfect is sometimes called future 2 or other weird names
> (just like modern teachers use terms like direct and indirect objects,
> or terms like conjunctive 1&2, just to confuse me, when a precise term
> would be so much easier to understand).
Direct vs. indirect _is_ a precise term; it's the difference between
accusative and dative...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
And they shall do this from their dark ministry which is ruled by the
beast in clothing of gold, and hair of crimson fire. And he shall have
a number, and that number is a human number: and that number is Over 5
Billion Served.
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <421l4iF1gjg03U1@individual.net>
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Hm, I don't want to look through all those pages right now, but the
>> future imperfect is sometimes called future 2 or other weird names
>> (just like modern teachers use terms like direct and indirect objects,
>> or terms like conjunctive 1&2, just to confuse me, when a precise term
>> would be so much easier to understand).
>
> Direct vs. indirect _is_ a precise term; it's the difference between
> accusative and dative...
Yes, but to anyone who's had grammar in school the terms dative and
accusative are much more precise and less confusing. By now I found out
that direct/indirect refer to those cases, but in the beginning I was
just confused and thought that they are new terms that refer to how or
if the preposition (or whatever) "a" is used (in Spanish). This goes so
far that modern grammar confuses me even more, and that the only way for
me to really learn it is by simply reading and getting used to it.
Likewise, it's no wonder if German students have trouble with grammar,
if all they teach is conjunctive 1&2 instead of actually telling us what
*tenses* they are. It's like in most programming languages and crappy
books: from dumbed-down, undescriptive descriptions you can't really
learn to understand anything. You can only blindly repeat, but without
knowledge to extrapolate to new cases.
--
the bottom line is that a JavaSchool that won't teach C and won't teach
Scheme is not really teaching computer science, either. -- Joel Spolsky
On 2006-01-03 22:26:32 +0000, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
> verec wrote:
>> On 2006-01-03 20:55:41 +0000, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> said:
>>
>>> I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as
>>> future imperfect...
>>
>> I am _not_ a native speaker, but references to some tense
>> as a future IMperfect is complete news to me! (apart from
>> Startrek, of course :-)
>
> I'm also non-native, but there's a future imperfect in most languages
> (well, Latin and (some?) derivatives, German, English ...). But the
> "you won't be doing it" doesn't look like future imperfect to me, but
> like a future infinitive (or gerund or something like that; INAN
> language expert). The other sentence in Eli's comment is simple,
> plain, future.
>
>> Neither this:
>> http://www.world-english.org/englishtenses.htm
>> nor this:
>> http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_seqtense.html
>> or this
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense
>>
>> seem to know of such a beast either ...
>
> Hm, I don't want to look through all those pages right now, but the
> future imperfect is sometimes called future 2 or other weird names
> (just like modern teachers use terms like direct and indirect objects,
> or terms like conjunctive 1&2, just to confuse me, when a precise term
> would be so much easier to understand). It looks like "after immense
> efforts you will have written a very cool system". Ok, maybe I should
> call it future perfect, not imperfect...
As far I know the rules, there are only 3 forms of future tense in English:
"That's why you are going to do it" -> Future intention
"That's why you will be doing it" -> Future Simple
"That's why you will have done it" -> Future Perfect.
Adding a negation
"That's why you are not going to do it"
"That's why you will not be doing it"
"That's why you will not have done it"
Doesn't change the tense.
--
JFB
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Can I write a better OS than Windows XP in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <m37j9gtsf4.fsf@4dv.net>
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
>> I read Pascal's comment not as an imperative but as future
>> imperfect...
>
> I am _not_ a native speaker, but references to some tense as a future
> IMperfect is complete news to me! (apart from Startrek, of course :-)
I was taught that 'I will have learnt' is a future perfect and that 'I
will learn'' is future imperfect. Grammarians disagree, of course--some
lunatics still think that it's inappropriate to split infinitives!
For the record, this is what I was taught, as I remember it:
Past Perfect: I had learnt
Perfect: I have learnt
Future Perfect: I will have learnt
Past Imperfect: I learnt
Present: I learn
Future: I will learn
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
You cannot run Windows innocently. Guilt of aiding & abetting, at the
very least, is automatic. Loading up on anti-virus and firewall software,
even decent ones, are merely well-meaning actions to be taken into
consideration by judge and jury when deciding your sentence. --dpm