Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
danweinreb.org
Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#2For those that had no idea what the hell symbolics are/is (As I did) I think it is referring to the company: http://smbx.org/ has info
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#3The dates on Dan Weinreb's blog are all wrong for some reason. This post likely dates back to 2011 or before. (EDIT: Ah, corrected by the moderators, thanks.)
I had the pleasure of meeting Dan at ECLM 2008, four years before his death. He was hacking away on his XO-1 and showing around fancy things. A very memorable man. He's missed.
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#4For those that had no idea what the hell symbolics are/is (As I did) I think it is referring to the company: http://smbx.org/ has info
It's sad what's become of http://symbolics.com/. I thought it would go to some Lisp-related project eventually.
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#5The dates on Dan Weinreb's blog are all wrong for some reason. This post likely dates back to 2011 or before. (EDIT: Ah, corrected by the moderators, thanks.) I had the pleasure of meeting Dan at ECLM 2008, four years before his death. He was hacking away on his XO-1 and showing around fancy things. A very memorable man. He's missed.
Thanks, I searched for him but wasn't sure if it was the same Dan Weinreb, given the dates on the web site.
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#6Good article I hadn't run across before; thanks for linking it.
One interesting side story is the odd Symbolics foray into animation and video through the Symbolics Graphics Division, which afaict was reasonably successful for a few years. It seemed like the sort of application-oriented business that might let the Symbolics machines break out of single-purpose "AI machines" into being seen as general workstations, or at least dual-purpose AI/graphics workstations. But that business seems to have sort of evaporated along with the rest of their business, despite not being AI and there being no "graphics winter". Perhaps steamrollered by Silicon Graphics, and the same trends towards Unix and commodity CPUs? Or not marketed well enough, by a company whose public materials focused too exclusively on Lisp+AI?
Some bits from that era: the S-Package 3d modeling/animation system (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV5obrYaogU), the PaintAmation package (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwer_xKrmI4), and the first HDTV processing on a workstation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KppVP8PiZag).
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#7Good article I hadn't run across before; thanks for linking it. One interesting side story is the odd Symbolics foray into animation and video through the Symbolics Graphics Division, which afaict was reasonably successful for a few years. It seemed like the sort of application-oriented business that might let the Symbolics machines break out of single-purpose "AI machines" into being seen as general workstations, or…
Sorry for the small plug: I gathered some videos and links about S-Graphics offsprings, mostly Mirai, done at Nichimen in http://www.reddit.com/r/nichimen
Some of these videos are already in, but if anyone has other articles or papers about anything S-Graphics/Mirai, like news about the izware guys, feel free to post.
ps: in case the subreddit is locked, I'll take links here.
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#8Exactly why Java succeed - the world is dominated by mediocrity while idiots are mostly on management positions.
This is why all we got nowadays are Windows PCs with Java. It "worth us" or "suits us well".
Designers were too smart (consider David Moon) while management was "as usual".
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#9Exactly why Java succeed - the world is dominated by mediocrity while idiots are mostly on management positions. This is why all we got nowadays are Windows PCs with Java. It "worth us" or "suits us well". Designers were too smart (consider David Moon) while management was "as usual".
What is also funny is that there was also the JavaStation which was once going to use special Java CPUs.
Re: Why Did Symbolics Fail? (2009)
#10Exactly why Java succeed - the world is dominated by mediocrity while idiots are mostly on management positions. This is why all we got nowadays are Windows PCs with Java. It "worth us" or "suits us well". Designers were too smart (consider David Moon) while management was "as usual".
What is also funny is that there was also the JavaStation which was once going to use special Java CPUs.
Do google for "Jazelle".)