3 ms·

I never argued anything positive about shell programming. Ever. :-) I still don't get your point, but assume you are saying that Unix is a poor replacement for

by berntb 10y ago

I never argued anything positive about shell programming. Ever. :-) I still don't get your point, but assume you are saying that Unix is a poor replacement for a real lisp machine environment?

pjmlp 10y ago
No, I am saying that if UNIX was available at the same price as the other OS of the time, it would never have been as successful as it was. In general, UNIX is a poor replacement for any of the OSes designed at Xerox PARC, they did at least three remarkable ones. Or at ETHZ for that matter.
- berntb 10y ago
  Uhm, I still don't get why the development (/execution) environment would have been different for Lisp? I am aware of that Unix/Linux is/was quite a simple solution. It is designed to be. It was still (more or less) the basis for Next and the present MacOS. Quite nice. (Disclaimer: Today I really only use Linux computers, for apt and compatibility with servers. No MacOS flames, please. :-) )
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > Uhm, I still don't get why the development (/execution) environment would have been different for Lisp? I still don't get why you keep focusing this discussion on Lisp alone, I explicitly referred to several OSes. All of them more expensive to buy than UNIX, which was available for peanuts. As for OS X. UNIX was the base for NeXTSTEP, because NeXT was after the workstation market owned by Sun and SGI workstations. But anyone that has bothered to learn the NeXTSTEP stack and respective APIs, knows how little UNIX culture it had, beyond "bring your stuff to our platform". The hybrid Mach/BSD kernel, device drivers written in Objective-C and the whole user space frameworks and GUI workflows. Mac OS X follows that tradition as any developer committed to OS X technology stack knows. Drivers are written in a C++ subset, we have the frameworks, automation via Apple Script, Objective-C and now Swift for GUI applications.

by berntb 10y ago

I never argued anything positive about shell programming. Ever. :-) I still don't get your point, but assume you are saying that Unix is a poor replacement for a real lisp machine environment?

pjmlp 10y ago

No, I am saying that if UNIX was available at the same price as the other OS of the time, it would never have been as successful as it was. In general, UNIX is a poor replacement for any of the OSes designed at Xerox PARC, they did at least three remarkable ones. Or at ETHZ for that matter.

berntb 10y ago
Uhm, I still don't get why the development (/execution) environment would have been different for Lisp? I am aware of that Unix/Linux is/was quite a simple solution. It is designed to be. It was still (more or less) the basis for Next and the present MacOS. Quite nice. (Disclaimer: Today I really only use Linux computers, for apt and compatibility with servers. No MacOS flames, please. :-) )
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > Uhm, I still don't get why the development (/execution) environment would have been different for Lisp? I still don't get why you keep focusing this discussion on Lisp alone, I explicitly referred to several OSes. All of them more expensive to buy than UNIX, which was available for peanuts. As for OS X. UNIX was the base for NeXTSTEP, because NeXT was after the workstation market owned by Sun and SGI workstations. But anyone that has bothered to learn the NeXTSTEP stack and respective APIs, knows how little UNIX culture it had, beyond "bring your stuff to our platform". The hybrid Mach/BSD kernel, device drivers written in Objective-C and the whole user space frameworks and GUI workflows. Mac OS X follows that tradition as any developer committed to OS X technology stack knows. Drivers are written in a C++ subset, we have the frameworks, automation via Apple Script, Objective-C and now Swift for GUI applications.