6 ms·

Why not use an existing Lisp implementation that has a good compiler? Or just run Mezzano [1]. [1] https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano https://github.com/frogg

by rjsw 4y ago

Why not use an existing Lisp implementation that has a good compiler? Or just run Mezzano [1]. [1] https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano

sph 4y ago
Because I want to follow my vision. There is space for more than one thing in the world. Also, Common Lisp is nice but it's anything but minimal. One of the questions I want to answer is what is the minimum amount of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware, while able to rewrite the entire kernel at run time. I bet it's not that many. That said, Mezzano is cool and I should play with it more.
- qubex 4y ago
  “Minimum number of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware” is a bit of a slippery slope when it’s known that one-instruction computers are Turing Complete (“subtract and branch if negative” being one I recall). There’s plenty of mind-bending stuff on esolangs.org
  - sph 4y ago
    Fair enough, but Lisp needs a little more than subleq & co. to do something useful :)
    - qubex 4y ago
      Turing-Church Thesis disagrees.
      - mschaef 4y ago
        You're right of course, but picking the specific point on the slippery slope you mentioned earlier is why this is an interesting engineering problem (and not a math/logic problem).
- gjadi 4y ago
  If you're looking for a minimalist lisp, checkout Shen: https://www.shenlanguage.org/ https://www.shenlanguage.org/
  - sph 4y ago
    At first glance this seems very minimalist in a mathematical/academic sense. For them minimalism is Peano numbers, for a computer guy it's cons and recursion. But it's worth spending more time with it, so thanks.
- mschaef 4y ago
  > Because I want to follow my vision. There is space for more than one thing in the world. That's nice... but I think you're underestimating the amount of work to produce something you actually want to use: > Yeah, that's my plan for the weekend. I'm currently working on a minimal Lisp implementation written in Rust, > One of the questions I want to answer is what is the minimum amount of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware, while able to rewrite the entire kernel at run time. I bet it's not that many. You should take a look at both PreScheme (part of Scheme48) and Squeak. There's a lot of prior art you can look at without compromising your vision. I'd also suggest you commit to a (modest) end state you want to achieve. I'm reminded that Linus Torvald's original motivation for Linux was to understand the multitasking hardware in the 80386. His first working development "kernel" ran two fixed tasks that printed something like A's and B's. So you may be well served by starting with something minimal, but functional and building out as you have time. This also has the advantage that if you run out of steam for the work, you'll still be able to explicitly state you achieved an interesting goal. (As opposed to "Yeah, I started out building a bare metal Lisp, but got bogged down in the interereter and...")
  - seanw444 4y ago
    I see your point. But also, reinventing the wheel is just fun. Building things out yourself, you eventually realize why certain design choices were made with the leading implementations as a consequence. I'm convinced the best way to understand something is to try and build one yourself. Even if it sucks.
    - mschaef 4y ago
      > reinventing the wheel is just fun. Agreed: https://github.com/mschaef/vcsh https://github.com/mschaef/vcsh At least for hobby development, I find the fun/utility trade off to be a point of ongoing thought.

by rjsw 4y ago

Why not use an existing Lisp implementation that has a good compiler? Or just run Mezzano [1]. [1] https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano

sph 4y ago

Because I want to follow my vision. There is space for more than one thing in the world. Also, Common Lisp is nice but it's anything but minimal. One of the questions I want to answer is what is the minimum amount of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware, while able to rewrite the entire kernel at run time. I bet it's not that many. That said, Mezzano is cool and I should play with it more.

qubex 4y ago
“Minimum number of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware” is a bit of a slippery slope when it’s known that one-instruction computers are Turing Complete (“subtract and branch if negative” being one I recall). There’s plenty of mind-bending stuff on esolangs.org
- sph 4y ago
  Fair enough, but Lisp needs a little more than subleq & co. to do something useful :)
  - qubex 4y ago
    Turing-Church Thesis disagrees.
    - mschaef 4y ago
      You're right of course, but picking the specific point on the slippery slope you mentioned earlier is why this is an interesting engineering problem (and not a math/logic problem).
gjadi 4y ago
If you're looking for a minimalist lisp, checkout Shen: https://www.shenlanguage.org/ https://www.shenlanguage.org/
- sph 4y ago
  At first glance this seems very minimalist in a mathematical/academic sense. For them minimalism is Peano numbers, for a computer guy it's cons and recursion. But it's worth spending more time with it, so thanks.
mschaef 4y ago
> Because I want to follow my vision. There is space for more than one thing in the world. That's nice... but I think you're underestimating the amount of work to produce something you actually want to use: > Yeah, that's my plan for the weekend. I'm currently working on a minimal Lisp implementation written in Rust, > One of the questions I want to answer is what is the minimum amount of constructs you need to have complete control over your hardware, while able to rewrite the entire kernel at run time. I bet it's not that many. You should take a look at both PreScheme (part of Scheme48) and Squeak. There's a lot of prior art you can look at without compromising your vision. I'd also suggest you commit to a (modest) end state you want to achieve. I'm reminded that Linus Torvald's original motivation for Linux was to understand the multitasking hardware in the 80386. His first working development "kernel" ran two fixed tasks that printed something like A's and B's. So you may be well served by starting with something minimal, but functional and building out as you have time. This also has the advantage that if you run out of steam for the work, you'll still be able to explicitly state you achieved an interesting goal. (As opposed to "Yeah, I started out building a bare metal Lisp, but got bogged down in the interereter and...")
- seanw444 4y ago
  I see your point. But also, reinventing the wheel is just fun. Building things out yourself, you eventually realize why certain design choices were made with the leading implementations as a consequence. I'm convinced the best way to understand something is to try and build one yourself. Even if it sucks.
  - mschaef 4y ago
    > reinventing the wheel is just fun. Agreed: https://github.com/mschaef/vcsh https://github.com/mschaef/vcsh At least for hobby development, I find the fun/utility trade off to be a point of ongoing thought.