Testing the waters.

[Richard Coleman]

> 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
be hard.

/rc