08 Nov 1998 14:40:07 -0500
>>>> In message <Pine.OSF.3.93.981107234917.9389Bfirstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>> On the subject of "Re: MIT 6.001"
>>>> Sent on Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:58:06 -0900 (AKST)
>>>> Honorable "James A. Crippen" <email@example.com> writes:
>> On 6 Nov 1998, Sam Steingold wrote:
>> > >> Would basically give you the same thing -- or something close. Now we need
>> > >> a basic Lisp shell.
>> > CLISP? (http://clisp.cons.org)
>> Even though it isn't lisp, the scheme shell scsh is probably to way to go.
>> I've often thought of rewriting the init scripts in scsh to make a more
>> lispish system, but the extent of the task has prevented me from
>> undertaking it.
>> As a shell, scsh is pretty much unparalleled. I can think of no other
>> shells that have access to all of the POSIX system calls. Its only
>> detriment is that nobody has written a CLI interface for it. IOW, there's
>> no way to interact with it other than the old, difficult REPL. If someone
>> took the time to write linkage to the GNU readline library and to termcap
>> then you'd have a shell that spoke scheme, had history, complex screen
>> commands (such as making text windows and the like), and full access to
>> all the major UNIX syscalls. Someone wrote a web server in it, for
>> example. It's much more than just a shell scripting interpreter, except
>> for its lacking a terse command set and having a good command line iface.
CLISP has all this (text windows, POSIX, readline, termcap etc), plus
full power of ANSI CL.
Sam Steingold (http://www.goems.com/~sds) running RedHat5.1 GNU/Linux
Micros**t is not the answer. Micros**t is a question, and the answer is Linux,
(http://www.linux.org) the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation.
A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.