3 ms·

There’s no assertion of inventing virtual memory - only that the platform had it as a feature. And for “novelty”, yes it was for personal, even minicomputer, sy

There’s no assertion of inventing virtual memory - only that the platform had it as a feature. And for “novelty”, yes it was for personal, even minicomputer, systems at the end of the 1970s when they were conceived. Also you’re confusing Symbolics software (post LM2) with the very barebones MIT CADR release. It was far better than that and the closely related LMI release. RMS rantings on this subject have only the most tenuous connection to reality (much like their originator ;). Finally, Symbolics online hypertext docs (via Document Examiner) really were great. When one is attempting to expand the market for a powerful, yet esoteric system, good docs make that system more approachable. Sadly I think they really did run out of Lisp hackers as an audience but they did try.

lispm 6y ago
What was invented though was a garbage collector tuned for virtual memory.
ncmncm 6y ago
Let us stipulate that the docs were outstanding. The syllogism, then, dictates that the code wasn't important. An independent measure may be derived from the value placed on the code when the company went into receivership, and from how widely it found use, afterward, detached from its overpriced host machine.
- pinewurst 6y ago
  They were both important and at least for a while, Symbolics had the resources to fully indulge both. Do crappy Google docs assure their ubermenschitude? :) It’s two different questions, to discuss the quality of their code and to discuss the value placed on it. It didn’t match the development and operational model of the tech world when they went into receivership, hence a low value.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Bad code and unimportant code can be as badly documented as (good or bad) important code, and often are. Initial quality of code is largely independent of its importance, although important code improves. I am happy to stipulate that theirs was admirable code, besides being admirably documented. Still: the implication is that few people ran it, and any consequences of running it faded quickly. When there's a choice of only two of good, important, or well-documented, a well-run organization chooses the first two.

lispm 6y ago

What was invented though was a garbage collector tuned for virtual memory.

ncmncm 6y ago

Let us stipulate that the docs were outstanding. The syllogism, then, dictates that the code wasn't important. An independent measure may be derived from the value placed on the code when the company went into receivership, and from how widely it found use, afterward, detached from its overpriced host machine.

pinewurst 6y ago
They were both important and at least for a while, Symbolics had the resources to fully indulge both. Do crappy Google docs assure their ubermenschitude? :) It’s two different questions, to discuss the quality of their code and to discuss the value placed on it. It didn’t match the development and operational model of the tech world when they went into receivership, hence a low value.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  Bad code and unimportant code can be as badly documented as (good or bad) important code, and often are. Initial quality of code is largely independent of its importance, although important code improves. I am happy to stipulate that theirs was admirable code, besides being admirably documented. Still: the implication is that few people ran it, and any consequences of running it faded quickly. When there's a choice of only two of good, important, or well-documented, a well-run organization chooses the first two.