Wed, 25 Mar 1998 17:07:03 +0000
Rodrigo Ventura wrote:
> Chris> Of course you can get simpler. You just eliminate them.
> Baa. It is implicit one wants to simplify without affecting
> the functionality!
Yeah, so what functionality are you worried to lose?
>> (IMHO this was
>> one major factor that led to UNIX development) -- the file
>> paradigm. One can access all kinds of different devices,
>> sockets to serial ports, throught memory itself by the
means of this
>> API. A similar API is required to LispOS.
> Chris> Why?
> Because simplicity (or cleaniness) of an API is usually an
> under-rated factor for broad acceptance.
So why not simplify the UNIX way, instead of wanting a "similar
API in LispOS"?
> Even if a certain API is the
> best in some technical sense, if it is not simple, if people cannot
> easly grasp how it works, it becomes useless as far as broad use is
> concerned? Imagine for instance the Xlib API. It's fast, is flexible,
> but nobody uses, because everybody prefers a Motif-like API where you
> have widget pointers and callbacks --> simplicity!
Xlib is actually quite simple. It's just that you've got to do
lots and lots of stuff, just to get say a button up on the
> Ok, I probably didn't explain myself good enought. This idea
> came up while I was thinking about whether to use (format)-like
> semantics or a printf()-like one. Then I had an idea: why not a much
> more complete and powerful semantics, for instance based on LaTeX
> syntax, eg "\int". It's much more readable than "%5d", don't you
Hmm. The whole concept of formatting strings seem a bit flawed to
me. \int is the invention of a sub-language that is not
Lisp/Scheme. That is what I thought we are trying to avoid.