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

Lisp Operating System (2015)

metamodular.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#41

Post by twic »

shalabhc wrote: post #19

Great write-up and I agree with many points. I don't think the 'Lisp language' is the key point here though, but the other OS properties like a single level store and composition methods richer than byte arrays. Would be nice if the author referenced historical systems that overlap these ideas. One is the Symbolics Genera system with 'data level integration' so apps shared rich data structures instead of uninterprete…

Yes, absolutely astounding that this article doesn't mention Genera.

If we're going to proceed to list every single address space operating system we've ever heard of, i'll mention SPIN, written in Modula 3 (although i don't know if it did anything clever about sharing data between applications):

http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/external/overview.html

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#42

Post by GrinningFool »

hardtoreason wrote: post #28

I literally stalled on the first sentence where he asserts without any rationale that an OS written in Lisp "would be a good thing in itself". WHY WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THIS MATTERS

Conversely, why would anyone think that because a thing doesn't matter to them, it shouldn't matter to anyone else either?

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#43

Post by gambler »

0x445442 wrote: post #26
mark_l_watson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wanted to also mention Mezzano - really easy to play with using VirtualBox. A bit off topic, but when I miss the environment of the Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine that I had from 1982 to about 1987, I find the closest thing today that offers a similar experience is Pharo Smalltalk.

I've had some user interface ideas I've wanted to explore floating around in my head for more than a decade. I' m now in a position to start exploring these ideas and after an extensive survey I decided to use Squeak. The deeper I get into this system the more appreciation I gain for the entire model.

Be sure to check out Cuis and Pharo as well.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#44

Post by sametmax »

admax88q wrote: post #35
rjsw wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a single address space you don't need Spectre to be able to discover any aspect of the running system.

Only if you're given raw memory access, which you are not in Lisp.

Without raw memory access, good luck supporting anything than basic hardware. Even some USB features requires it.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#45

Post by sametmax »

heisig wrote: post #9

Summary: - We don't need separate processes if the language we use is inherently safe (e.g., modern Common Lisp). - Without process isolation, it is possible to share large, complicated and possibly mutable data structures (graphs, arrays, user-defined objects) system-wide. - Once it is possible to cheaply share and communicate arbitrary data structures, it is pointless to maintain designated 'file system'. - Not hav…

The problem with the safety requirement, is that it's not just a language thing. It's also an architecture thing.

We created sandboxes for a reason.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#46

Post by gambler »

all2 wrote: post #23
scroot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dan Ingalls wrote similarly in his Design Principles Behind Smalltalk [1], noting that "An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a language. There shouldn't be one." [1] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk....

That makes me reconsider the Plan9 OS, where everything is a file system. Then, nothing fits in the language (C)?

Making everything a file is one way to give all components a universal interface. It's not the only possible or even the best way. The problem is that today there are no universal interfaces at all, so even a file-based one seems immensely powerful by comparison.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#47

Post by krapp »

twic wrote: post #39
0xcde4c3db wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not having a file system raises the question of what data should be persistent and what shouldn't. But on a modern computer, it is feasible to just treat all data as persistent (maybe excluding the youngest GC generation). I'd be concerned about the UX issue of ephemeral vs. permanent changes here. I doubt that files and save/revert operations are the best we can do, but I think there's a lot of value in the fact t…

If you squint a bit, the web is a bit like a giant multi-user operating system. We certainly save a lot of data in it, and expect it to persist. But we don't generally do that using a file metaphor, and i don't hear people crying out for one. My comments on HN don't look like files to me. Nor do my tasting notes on Untappd, my shitposts on various Slacks, my projects on GitHub (which contain files, but aren't files t…

Except, everything you mentioned are still one or multiple files sitting on a remote server. That it isn't necessarily presented as such through a particular web app's interface isn't relevant... under the hood, it's still just files on an operating system designed around that concept. Even data in a database is also data in a database file.

I mean, there's a reason URLs look like directory paths... that's what they were originally meant to be, remote paths to files.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#48

Post by [deleted] »

GrinningFool wrote: post #42
hardtoreason wrote: post #28

I literally stalled on the first sentence where he asserts without any rationale that an OS written in Lisp "would be a good thing in itself". WHY WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK THIS MATTERS

Conversely, why would anyone think that because a thing doesn't matter to them, it shouldn't matter to anyone else either?

[deleted]

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#49

Post by 4thaccount »

scroot wrote: post #16
heisig wrote: post #9

Summary: - We don't need separate processes if the language we use is inherently safe (e.g., modern Common Lisp). - Without process isolation, it is possible to share large, complicated and possibly mutable data structures (graphs, arrays, user-defined objects) system-wide. - Once it is possible to cheaply share and communicate arbitrary data structures, it is pointless to maintain designated 'file system'. - Not hav…

Dan Ingalls wrote similarly in his Design Principles Behind Smalltalk [1], noting that "An operating system is a collection of things that don't fit into a language. There shouldn't be one." [1] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk....

There is a large interview with Chuck Moore of Forth fame on O'Reilly Safari Online.

Much of the interview focuses on things like how an OS is uneccesarry and shouldn't exist. Granted, he has drastically different needs than the average user.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#50

Post by newsoul2019 »

Does anyone remember the TI Explorer? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI_Explorer). They were sold in the 1980s, I first saw one in person in 1993. It was astonishing back then that it had an optical mouse and an optical cable connecting the keyboard to the rest of the unit. My understanding is that it was a full stack LISP machine, down to CAR/CDR support in hardware.
Post reply on HN