On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> Bruce ONeel <edoneel at sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
...
> Now I can stop feeling inferior for not using a "real" Lisp machine (:-).

For what it's worth, the Symbolics systems really are pretty solid for all
the issues he mentioned, at least in the later systems versions (although
I never used or had a use for chaosnet, so I can't speak to that). He must
have used an inferior TI Explorer system.  ;-)

And I should add, my enthusiasm for these systems extends only to the
software and interface abstractions (the main reason for focussing on
Symbolics, which had the main development and design lead). The
dedicated-hardware concept is not something I'm willing to push for in any
shape or form. Better to concentrate on improving the integration of
type-inferencing and modern compiler optimizations, as well as developing
better systems abstractions. And, oh yeah, get those old ideas that no one
has matched yet delivered to everykid (in the right way, of course).

The reason these machines are so useful is that they enabled developers in
those days to jump straight to systems design in safe languages (even C
runs on them - just with incredible debuggability), instead of messing
with low-level OS support without any real type-checking or error-handling
hooks.

The modern equivalent is to re-use the linux kernel and develop some
in-kernel module to support running safe vm's atop it, as well as hooks
for interactively modifying it. Jecel's work and Squeak-based "weather
PC's" notwithstanding, there is a real area of benefit that is being
missed by the surrounding enthusiasts, which is much more independent of
commercial funding and would have a wider audience.

-- 
Brian T. Rice
LOGOS Research and Development
http://tunes.org/~water/