Francois-Rene Rideau rideau@clipper
Sat, 10 Apr 93 3:00:44 MET DST

>> I sat down the other day and tried to figure out why I was working on Moose -
>> my motivations, and why I want to see it succeed.  I came up with a good long
>> list for I'm intersted from you:
>> 1. Why are you working on Moose?  (Be detailed!)
'cause 'tis I want to realize my old System project - a system where anybody
could add his own features add have them fit perfectly in any application,
without having to rewrite the whole app to add his module, or wait for big
companies to add a similar module to the app's next version - a system
where anything once done wouldn't have to be ever rewritten/adapted again
(except for real enhancement).

>> 2. What are your intentions?  (Technical knowledge/just for fun/fame/fortune/
>> 	fast women/famous fortunate fast women?)
having a system where I really can work, i.e. not do things I will have to
begin again and again every time. Then I can concentrate on what I like:
music, a system game, artificial intelligence.

>> 3. When all is said and done, what do you want to say you have accomplished?
My sheriff's duty c|:-( *

>> Next, I began thinking about requirements - general things, like "Moose should
>> be easy to port to other systems".  Or even, "Moose needs to be smaller than
>> Windows NT".  Of course, some of these will be easy to accomplish... ;-)
 I've already defined the main requirements: finish with user/programmer
barrier which make computers unusable, and allow systemwise generic modular
 Being portable to other AND FUTURE platforms will be achieved
by ending the previous/current unportable/stupid/limitating existing
connection between high-level programming and its implementation; by
disconnecting the two (i.e. allowing the user and/or compiler to freely
choose each HLL implementation, and work with HL objects independently of
(possibly simultaneously different) implementations; NOT forbidding one
to communicate with the other: you CAN bind an (lower or higher level) impl'
but you WON'T HAVE TO when its not necessary/harmful).
 Being smaller than NT will be achieved by not writing bullshit, not filling
files with zeros, compressing data rather than expanding it, not having to
maintain compatibility with previous software, eliminating code/data
redundancy through standardness of common modules and allowing genericity in
high-level definitions.

>> What I'm doing is putting together a small document to try and capture the
>> purpose of our group - the whos, whats, whens, wheres, and whys of our
>> existence.  I think its something we should have done a long time ago, but
>> better late than never.  Sure, we've all been working towards a common goal,
>> but can any of you tell me what that goal is?
The goal is what lies at the end of it all. Well, I think no one is ever
sure of what the others mean, all the more if we communicate only by e-mail,
which sure is slowly read. The best would have been physical meetings;
perhaps we can have an Y-Talk one day. For those (like you, Dennis) who
don't have talk capabilities, I can lend you my account, or an unused account
on my computer whom password I know.
 So, when can we (=part or totality of the group) have a talking party
together. I can be free at any hour (provided I am forewarned). So please
mail me your Talk-ative time (please give also GMT).

>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On the technical end...
>> No, I don't think we should be thinking about the Pentium yet - I was just
>> offering the info if anyone is interested.  One thing we shouldn't ignore when
>> implementing our system is that there are very few instruction differences
>> between the 386, 486, and the Pentium processor.  Intstruction *ordering* is
>> the key in the Pentium, where code can be optimized by rearranging the
>> order instructions are executed.  Simple instructions can operate in parallel
>> with each other, complex instructions cannot - in many cases, execution time
>> can be cut nearly in half!
>> Just a guess: The P6 will do instruction ordering optimization on the fly. :-)
>> 				Dennis
I was rather thinking about designing an OO chip, or putting in parallel
cheap FORTH units (as they are just very simple, one could have 4,8,16 of
them on a single chip, and/or give memory and IO on the same chip as the cpu;
this would be far more powerful and/or cheaper than any other equivalent
cpu based system; but the whole system is to be written)