Testing the waters.
Wed, 07 May 1997 17:14:32 -0400
> Suppose my company were interested in developing LispOS in
> this manner:
> Native i386 code,
> no underlying unix (lisp down to the metal),
> start with Scheme as basis language,
> design with support for persistent object system,
> implementation tools running on '95/NT,
> free software.
> How many people would be interested in actually investing
> time and energy on this? If there is a critical mass, I'll
> start the project.
In general, I would support this. But I believe the Common Lisp is
a better bet for this project (and CMU is a particularly good choice).
By down to the metal, I'm assuming you mean using Flux... I can't
imagine wasting time writing low level boot code when the Flux
project has already done this.
I'm not sure exactly you have in mind for Windows 95/NT. Some type
of cross-compiling.. or something. I guess it's possible, but would