|
emacs is the inner platform effect for OSes
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
power botton posted:emacs is the inner platform effect for OSes sortof. modern emacs explicitly set out to be an "inner platform." i'm not sure it counts as inner platform effect if it happens intentionally. the original lisp machines were single-user workstations in a network environment. a lispM was the ultimate luxury for programmers. but nobody could afford one gnu emacs, and gosling emacs before it, were crude attempts to re-create the lispM os + environment on top of unix, so you could have a taste of luxury on $10,000 workstations instead of $60,000 workstations the lispMs are dead and gone but gnu emacs is still with us
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:vi was a visual mode hastily grafted to a text editor meant for teletypes odd since amigaos 2 came with microemacs, a superior editor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:vi was a visual mode hastily grafted to a text editor meant for teletypes
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:the original lisp machines were single-user workstations in a network environment. a lispM was the ultimate luxury for programmers. but nobody could afford one I so wish Symbolics (or TI/LMI) would've hopped on the 68020 or 80386 train in the mid-1980s, no matter how nice they are a LispM is a royal pain to keep running the OpenGenera Virtual Lisp Machine (aka VLM, for Alpha and ported to x86-64 Linux and macOS with X11) is better but still very constrained by trying to emulate the weird-rear end and grossly underspecified Ivory hardware rather than run natively either as a process or on bare hardware Symbolics even had a product, CLOE, for delivering on i386 hardware (under DOS and later Windows, with 8-16MB of RAM minimum, in the late 1980s…) after developing on LispM but they apparently never ported the tools or user environment beyond the bare bones (I should really pick some more folks’ brains about that) quote:gnu emacs, and gosling emacs before it, were crude attempts to re-create the lispM os + environment on top of unix, so you could have a taste of luxury on $10,000 workstations instead of $60,000 workstations they honestly weren't even attempts to clone the LispM environment, not even the relatively primitive CADR/LMI environments much less the Symbolics Genera or later TI Explorer environments they were much more attempts to clone the TOPS-20/ITS and Multics terminal-based emacs environments the only real attempts to replicate the LispM environment on commodity hardware were Coral Common Lisp on the Mac and Lucid Common Lisp on Unix, and only the former was remotely successful (in the sense that it was sold and supported commercially until about 2006)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
eschaton posted:I so wish Symbolics (or TI/LMI) would've hopped on the 68020 or 80386 train in the mid-1980s, no matter how nice they are a LispM is a royal pain to keep running ti and symbolics concluded it wasn't possible, for performance reasons xerox did actually port their lisp system to an emulator. there's even an x86/linux version floating around. i assume they were more open to it because interlisp's native hosts were so slow by 1980s standards (pdp-10 or dorado, pick your poison) eschaton posted:they honestly weren't even attempts to clone the LispM environment, not even the relatively primitive CADR/LMI environments much less the Symbolics Genera or later TI Explorer environments i'm not so sure about this. gosling, and gosling's emacs, came out of CMU's work with lisp on unix. he wanted a lisp-enabled, lisp-extensible editor that didn't require cmu lisp to get started. (and who can blame him. on 1980s hardware, cmu lisp was a real bear) stallman, and gnu emacs, were explicitly attempts to clone the CADR environment that stallman was so fond of, after he gave up his quixotic effort to clone symbollics advances on lmi and cadr machines. i mean, sure, stallman would have had his own history with emacs on its/tenex/whatever, but that doesn't seem to have been very influential on gnu emacs. the old pdp-10 emacs doesn't really resemble gnu emacs. the macro language looks more like vimscript than anything. it doesn't have a debugger. there's no notion of processes. as with vimscript, it's not a complete enough environment to write any novel applications. it's just a scriptable editor -- nothing more, nothing less. gnu emacs started on day one with a pretty fancy lisp interpreter and complete api to drive the editor. it was never a good lisp but it was considerably more than a bundle of editor macros.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
here is a freeware copy of the xerox interlisp environment, for those so interested specifically it is a gui application, "grammar writer's workbench," which is hosted inside a complete interlisp setup. i think all the necessary dev tools are included, but i don't know enough about xerox-land to say. i have successfully gotten it running in the past but i don't really know how to use it! http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/medley/ ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/lfg/README.TXT the website omits any mention of the linux/i386 version, but the binaries are there on the ftp and described in the readme
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
compiler architecture target: emacs
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 04:43
|
|
