3 ms·

> The Symbolics 3600, the B5000, and the Smalltalk microcode for the Dorado all had generic operation dispatching in hardware Regarding the symbolics, that see

> The Symbolics 3600, the B5000, and the Smalltalk microcode for the Dorado all had generic operation dispatching in hardware Regarding the symbolics, that seems highly unlikely as lisp is not an object oriented language unless the MOP is draped over it (which is multi-dispatch IIRC and that's not going into hardware). Please provide some links to show I'm wrong. > The iAPX432 and the Rational R1000, as far as I can tell, didn't. "9.4.2 Procedure Call and Context Objects To transfer control to a procedure, a program executes a CALL instruction, causing the procedure to be invoked. On exe- cution of a CALL instruction, the hardware constructs a new context object. The context object is the procedure invocation record and defines the dynamic addressing environment in which the procedure executes. All addressing of objects and scalars occurs through the context object, and the context is the root of all objects reachable by the procedure." from https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/Chapter9.pdf https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/Chapter9.pdf regarding the Intel iAPX 432 Note: dynamic addressing environment. Repeat: 'dynamic' > Branch target buffer Oh give me a break, this is just branch prediction and a little caching, it's nothing to do with OO/dispatch because there is no generic dispatch involved. It's just an optimisation for normal dispatch, nothing else. If you don't understand what a branch predictor actually does... ech > Dorado I'm not familiar with Dorado, can you provide a link showing this and preferably a bit more information as well actually stating this clearly. > You're just repeating buzzwords rather than taking the time to understand what they refer to. I do get tired of HN, I come to learn, I get dragged down by clammy seaweed posts like this, just claims, no concrete anything ("as far as I can tell"), from people who know even less than me ("Generic late-bound operation dispatching .... For many years AMD64 CPUs have had hardware acceleration for this sort of thing in the form of a 'branch target buffer' OMG just stop talking). Don't lecture me until you can deliver the goods, then and only then, lecture away because then I'll be listening.

_19qg 4y ago
> Regarding the symbolics, that seems highly unlikely as lisp is not an object oriented language The Symbolics Genera operating system is largely written in object-oriented style using the Flavors OO-extension. Since the early machines had a micro-programmable CPU, there were with new operating system releases also new CPU extensions to support new Lisp, OOP or logic language (Prolog) features. Beyond that: Lisp originally used 'generic operations' in a non-OO sense. For example the + operation works for all the kinds of numbers (integer + integer, float + float, integer + float, integer + complex, ... and so on). The CPU determines at runtime which operation runs. Thus there is only one generic ADD instruction and not per-type instructions.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Very informative, thank you
kragen 4y ago
> Note: dynamic addressing environment. Repeat: 'dynamic' "Dynamic addressing environment" in this context refers to the stack frame in which the procedure stores its local variables (and which may contain, for example, a link to the stack frame of an enclosing procedure, as in Pascal). Lots of things can be dynamic, which is to say, determined at run-time; method dispatch is just one of them. This is a good example of you repeating buzzwords without understanding what they refer to, although in this case the buzzword is also a technical term with a precise meaning. Intel liked to use the term "object-oriented" to describe the iAPX432 because it was fashionable, but their idea of "objects" was more like CLU "clusters" as filtered through Ada, not the Smalltalk approach the term "object-oriented" was invented to describe. You're also confusing CLOS and Flavors with CLOS's MOP. > If you don't understand what a branch predictor actually does... Possibly in five or ten years if you read this conversation again you will be in a better position to learn from it; right now you seem to be too full of ego to take advantage of the opportunity. Save a bookmark and maybe put a reminder in your calendar. > Please provide some links to show I'm wrong. Helping you stop being wrong is not really my responsibility :) You're treating knowledge as a repulsive medicine that needs to be forced on you, not a precious treasure that merits seeking out. The problem with this is that if you only change your mind when it's profitable for someone else to talk you out of your mistakes, you'll just end up being exploited (and continuing to parrot half-understood nonsense in technical discussions). It isn't society's responsibility to give you the cognitive tools you need to realize your potential; it's yours.

_19qg 4y ago

> Regarding the symbolics, that seems highly unlikely as lisp is not an object oriented language The Symbolics Genera operating system is largely written in object-oriented style using the Flavors OO-extension. Since the early machines had a micro-programmable CPU, there were with new operating system releases also new CPU extensions to support new Lisp, OOP or logic language (Prolog) features. Beyond that: Lisp originally used 'generic operations' in a non-OO sense. For example the + operation works for all the kinds of numbers (integer + integer, float + float, integer + float, integer + complex, ... and so on). The CPU determines at runtime which operation runs. Thus there is only one generic ADD instruction and not per-type instructions.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Very informative, thank you

kragen 4y ago

> Note: dynamic addressing environment. Repeat: 'dynamic' "Dynamic addressing environment" in this context refers to the stack frame in which the procedure stores its local variables (and which may contain, for example, a link to the stack frame of an enclosing procedure, as in Pascal). Lots of things can be dynamic, which is to say, determined at run-time; method dispatch is just one of them. This is a good example of you repeating buzzwords without understanding what they refer to, although in this case the buzzword is also a technical term with a precise meaning. Intel liked to use the term "object-oriented" to describe the iAPX432 because it was fashionable, but their idea of "objects" was more like CLU "clusters" as filtered through Ada, not the Smalltalk approach the term "object-oriented" was invented to describe. You're also confusing CLOS and Flavors with CLOS's MOP. > If you don't understand what a branch predictor actually does... Possibly in five or ten years if you read this conversation again you will be in a better position to learn from it; right now you seem to be too full of ego to take advantage of the opportunity. Save a bookmark and maybe put a reminder in your calendar. > Please provide some links to show I'm wrong. Helping you stop being wrong is not really my responsibility :) You're treating knowledge as a repulsive medicine that needs to be forced on you, not a precious treasure that merits seeking out. The problem with this is that if you only change your mind when it's profitable for someone else to talk you out of your mistakes, you'll just end up being exploited (and continuing to parrot half-understood nonsense in technical discussions). It isn't society's responsibility to give you the cognitive tools you need to realize your potential; it's yours.