Live data from Hacker News

Lisp Operating System (2015)

metamodular.com

61–63 of 63 posts

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#61
post #58
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, files in plan 9 can be viewed as a way to "make objects look like files." http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/names note that the filesystem interface isn't totally durable across all operations: a syscall is still necessary to create processes, for instance. cp /proc/... doesn't do what one might think it does. http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/4th_edition/papers/9 i appreciate that the original article si…

> i've heard the smalltalkers catch some flak about not actually writing an os because there was (apparently) the equivalent of exec(), no fork()

In the Smalltalk world, processes are just instances of the class `Process` and `Processor` is a singleton that manages all processes. You can create new processes several different ways, the most common being to send the message `fork` to a block closure.

Because everything is so late bound in a Smalltalk system, and because the objects are running and executing live all the time, it comes to resemble an OS in a lot of ways. I think the key lesson here is not just about which language is better or good for X or Y, but about how holistic computing environments are more important than languages alone. I go on a lot about Hypercard and how that was a real missed opportunity, as well as being an excellent environment. But it's Hypertalk language was only a part of that environment and cannot really be evaluated on its own, for example.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#62
post #38
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emacs is written in Emacs LISP, which is its own language. The really performance-critical stuff is written in C, as is the interpreter, but that’s it.

That's ostensibly what I said wasn't it? Sorry but I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I interpreted your comment to mean something like “Emacs is configurable with third-party LISP code”, in much the same way as Vim is configurable with third-party Vimscript.

But Vim is written in C, Vimscript being just a bolt on, whereas Emacs LISP is its own language entirely, a distinct variant of LISP, and much of Emacs implemented in it.

Re: Lisp Operating System (2015)

#63
post #62
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ostensibly what I said wasn't it? Sorry but I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I interpreted your comment to mean something like “Emacs is configurable with third-party LISP code”, in much the same way as Vim is configurable with third-party Vimscript. But Vim is written in C, Vimscript being just a bolt on, whereas Emacs LISP is its own language entirely, a distinct variant of LISP, and much of Emacs implemented in it.

LISP is a family of languages (much like BASIC). So Emacs Lisp is still a LISP.

I don't even know why you're bring Vim into the discussion when it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. It doesn't invalidate the statement I made; I just makes your reply look a little snobby because you seem concerned that someone might compare Emacs and Emacs Lisp to Vim and Vim Script (I clearly wasn't given the complete lack of reference to Vim in my post).

To be honest I thought we had gotten past those tedious flamewars in the 90s.

Post reply on HN