41–46 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or like any other language implementation with a language-oriented virtual machine: Java/JVM, CLISP, SQUEAK, ...
But Open Genera isn't a language-oriented VM, it's an Ivory emulator. There's a huge difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't said anything against his point. It is just that claiming that Stallman was the only one 'getting free software' is bullshit. He did a lot, but in the Lisp community there were many others which promote(d) free software. Also Stallman did promote Free software, but his promotion of Lisp was mostly limited to Emacs Lisp. There was an attempt with Guile, but that was mostly it. He had worked with the Lisp Mac…
"That Symbolics would have not gone out of business if Genera would have been free software and portable is speculation." Two different things. I was claiming that Genera would still be around if it was Free Software - this is by virtue of definition. Symbolics being in and out of business has nothing to do with it. A totally different thing is that I think Symbolics stood a very good chance of surviving if it had ma…
I doubt that Allegro CL is easier to port than Open Genera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One word: Apple It's feasible.
Apple has never developed their own hardware architecture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple has never developed their own hardware architecture.
You must be using a very narrow definition of "hardware architecture". In the 68K era Apple used to custom-design pretty much everything interesting in the box except the processor and memory. The IIfx was perhaps the most extreme example (several custom ASICs and two 6502-based I/O coprocessors, IIRC). For the Newton we even designed parts of the processor (e.g., the MMU).
Symbolics' systems and the first AS/400 models (the last new hardware/software architecture developed by IBM) are in a totally different class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be using a very narrow definition of "hardware architecture". In the 68K era Apple used to custom-design pretty much everything interesting in the box except the processor and memory. The IIfx was perhaps the most extreme example (several custom ASICs and two 6502-based I/O coprocessors, IIRC). For the Newton we even designed parts of the processor (e.g., the MMU).
Let's take your example of the IIfx: off the shelf 68k processor on NuBus. ASICs and I/O coprocessors are just devices. Granted I didn't know about the custom processor work on the Newton, but if IIfx counts as a new hardware architecture, then so does the x86 move from ISA and 8259A to PCI-E and APIC. And I don't think it makes sense to argue that today's Macs have anything resembling a custom architecture. Symbolic…
If you're curious about the Newton processor: http://www.ot1.com/arm/armchap1.html (see the "ARM6" section).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's take your example of the IIfx: off the shelf 68k processor on NuBus. ASICs and I/O coprocessors are just devices. Granted I didn't know about the custom processor work on the Newton, but if IIfx counts as a new hardware architecture, then so does the x86 move from ISA and 8259A to PCI-E and APIC. And I don't think it makes sense to argue that today's Macs have anything resembling a custom architecture. Symbolic…
Fair enough: sounds like your definition of "hardware architecture" is limited to the processor itself. If you're curious about the Newton processor: http://www.ot1.com/arm/armchap1.html (see the "ARM6" section).
Thanks for the link.