thinking about virtual machines, etc.

[Michael Korns]

Paul,

In my opinion it should benefit Java, Lisp, ML, Smalltalk all equally well.
It should be simple so that would-be franchisees can enter the market at
low cost. This insures a wide range of component options. We would even go
beyond object oriented and suggest that it be agent oriented as well.

----------
> From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
> To: LispOS Project <lispos@math.gatech.edu>
> Subject: Re: thinking about virtual machines, etc.
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 1997 9:02 AM
> 
> Maybe the people who worked on the Lisp machines could explain to me why
> this environment really has to be Lisp-centric. What seems to me to be
> interesting to it is that 
> 
> a) the operating system services are written in a dynamic HLL, source is
> available, and you may trace into "services"
> 
> b) rather than passing around streams one passes around objects. Rather
> than serializing objects explicitly you just mark them persistent
> 
> c) really good Lisp development tools are available.
> 
> It sounds to me that what we are talking about, then, is a nice object
> oriented (as opposed to file oriented) operating system with really
> tight emacs bindings. Is there any reason it should be Lisp-centric,
> then? The Java and SmallTalk people would probably be also interested in
> such a system. It might actually stand a chance of mainstream success if
> we team up with others who are rebelling against systems without the
> properties above.
> 
>  Paul Prescod
>