Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

lispm.dyndns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#11

Post by sedachv »

ScottBurson wrote: post #9
sedachv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think you mentioned that before on TUNES or somewhere else. If ints and bytes is the biggest problem, I don't see how that is a big deal - pull the int out of the array and shift/mask it to get the byte. Or am I missing something here? What I was thinking was going to be hard was structs (although most C code tends not to abuse those too much because padding issues tend to be pretty visible disincentives, but…

pull the int out of the array and shift/mask it to get the byte The problem is, you would have to be prepared to do this anytime you're dereferencing a byte pointer. You wouldn't know at compile time whether the pointer points into byte-organized or word-organized memory. You're right about structs, too.

I still don't see what the problem is - you know the type of memory array you're referencing into (int, byte, whatever), you know the type of pointer you're dereferencing (byte). So is the problem going to be that it will be slow? In portable CL, yes, but there's always ways to get at the implementation's array-accessing internals and fake type-displaced arrays (esp. if you have control over the internals, as this hypothetical project would).

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#12

Post by ScottBurson »

sedachv wrote: post #11
ScottBurson wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pull the int out of the array and shift/mask it to get the byte The problem is, you would have to be prepared to do this anytime you're dereferencing a byte pointer. You wouldn't know at compile time whether the pointer points into byte-organized or word-organized memory. You're right about structs, too.

I still don't see what the problem is - you know the type of memory array you're referencing into (int, byte, whatever), you know the type of pointer you're dereferencing (byte). So is the problem going to be that it will be slow? In portable CL, yes, but there's always ways to get at the implementation's array-accessing internals and fake type-displaced arrays (esp. if you have control over the internals, as this hy…

Well, that's a good point. In these days of high-quality open-source implementations, games can be played under the covers that would be impossible in portable CL.

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#13

Post by ScottBurson »

sedachv wrote: post #5

Lisp Machines are something that you think is really cool when you first learn about them, then you come to the realization that pining for them is a waste of time. I've had a flash of inspiration recently and have been thinking about Lisp Machines a lot in the past three weeks. But first, a digression. There's an important lesson to be learned about why Symbolics failed. I think Richard Gabriel came to the completel…

BTW I have a different theory about why Lisp Machines failed in the market. Symbolics and LMI were spoiled by the high prices the machines originally commanded (under the influence of the AI bubble and DoD money) and didn't realize how aggressive they needed to be about making them cheap. When the Sun 4/110 came out, it was about 1/5 the price of a comparable Lisp Machine, and faster. Had LispMs been price-competitive with workstations, they would at least have lasted a few more years. Of course, in the end even the workstation vendors succumbed to the marauding hordes of PCs.

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#15

Post by regularfry »

cageface wrote: post #14

There is no such thing as the "best" software environment, anymore than there is the best car. It all depends on what you're trying to do and what your priorities and constraints are.

That's the dogma, but is there a reason for it to actually be true? All we know for sure is that there isn't a clear winner yet.

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#16

Post by artsrc »

cageface wrote: post #14

There is no such thing as the "best" software environment, anymore than there is the best car. It all depends on what you're trying to do and what your priorities and constraints are.

If you know what you know your priorities, constraints and "what are trying to do" (goals), then, is there such a thing as a best software environment?

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#17

Post by gukjoon »

regularfry wrote: post #15
cageface wrote: post #14

There is no such thing as the "best" software environment, anymore than there is the best car. It all depends on what you're trying to do and what your priorities and constraints are.

That's the dogma, but is there a reason for it to actually be true? All we know for sure is that there isn't a clear winner yet .

Software environments, languages, and other such abstractions aren't there to be perfect. They are there to help human beings manage absurd numbers of machine instructions. Maybe when we fully understand the human mind, we'll figure out the perfect way to map machine instructions to concepts that humans can grok. Until then, we'll have to make somewhat subjective design decisions in the face of uncertain constraints and priorities, which is certainly not going to lead to a "best" solution.

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#18

Post by cageface »

regularfry wrote: post #15
cageface wrote: post #14

There is no such thing as the "best" software environment, anymore than there is the best car. It all depends on what you're trying to do and what your priorities and constraints are.

That's the dogma, but is there a reason for it to actually be true? All we know for sure is that there isn't a clear winner yet .

Not dogma, but the conclusion of reason and experience. You don't build a bridge and a house with the same tools. Why should software be different?

Re: Symbolics Genera - The Best Software Environment Available

#20

Post by lispm »

sedachv wrote: post #5

Lisp Machines are something that you think is really cool when you first learn about them, then you come to the realization that pining for them is a waste of time. I've had a flash of inspiration recently and have been thinking about Lisp Machines a lot in the past three weeks. But first, a digression. There's an important lesson to be learned about why Symbolics failed. I think Richard Gabriel came to the completel…

Steven Levy basically repeats Stallman propaganda. Others have different memories about that time.

Also not only Stallman promoted free software in that time. For example the Common Lisp community had extreme benefit from what was done at CMU. CMUCL/Spice Lisp was released as public domain software and has been used widely in derived implementations, like SBCL or even commercial software. There were several other prominent Lisp hackers from that time which promote free software.

Stallman did a lot, but please make him a saint - when people like Scott Fahlman had much more impact in the Lisp community.

Post reply on HN