Criticism ... synthesis?

[Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (external)]

Dear Fare

> > Can somebody _please_ forward me the communications from 14 - 16 
>> [..]
> Err, the complete tunes archive is on the usual moose ftp site:
> frmap711.mathp7.jussieu.fr:pub/scratch/rideau/moose/TUNES/mail*/tunes*
> If you can't ftp, I'll bounce all that to you...

Apologies. Just trying to avoid downloading a few hundred K file on 
my 2400 bps for the sake of a few K (my telephone bills are always 
horrendous). But I _can_ FTP.

> inline possible code to call other objects directly ? Why have some
> constant overhead however simple the communicating objects are ?

I want to achieve a balance between speed and generality. 
Optimization can follow. It is better to write slow (but not 
unnecessarily slow) code that works, and then speed it up, than to 
write blindingly fast bullshit.

> This would mean a limit to object grain below which having it systemwise
> it a loss; so that peoplee would be forced to build systems over ours to
> manage small objects, and have to build complex interfaces to allow
> combining their possibly small objects to system objects !!!

No.

>    That's the flaw of microkernel. You don't remove centralization by
> reducing the size of the kernel, but by eliminating the kernel.


You show me yours and I'll show you mine! (Code, I mean).

> want to connect to it to fulfill some arbitrary conditions. In my system,
> objects are free, and self-responsible; whereas in a centralized system, the
> kernel is responsible for everything. 

I think that we are talking about different things. I see no problem 
with objects in my system being self-responsible. I think that we 
actually have a lot of common ground. You and I are just looking at 
the face of Janus from different perspectives! Let's not kill one 
another about this!! I'm pretty sure that my proposals will not be 
what you consider a "kernel"!

> For example, if we have a RISC-like
> LLL, and computer architectures go toward MISC, then the LLL might have
> to be changed completely !

I cannot see us being committed to eg a RISC architecture. I'll try 
and provide some code (a sketch) soon.


> > >   I'm for a free world. Freedom allows selection of the fittest 
>...
> Not at all. But we won't provide some compulsory centralized state, but
> only optional *standard* services that people may freely use, or not use
> if they find better service providers.
> 

Yeah. I agree that we need freedom, an open mind etc. But we also 
need standards, and a basic approach. The trick is to define the 
basics appropriately, so that they will _last_. Computer programming 
is the ultimate art form (in my mind) but how many of the creations 
of 20 years ago are still functional?

"Do not be so open minded that your brains run out of your ears".


>    GC is a must in persistent system. And in a multi-* system, you
> can't statically decide when an object is no longer needed. Requiring
> objects to handle there own GC is monstruous as for code size. This
> should be *possible*, but surely not *required*. Really, the LLL should
> include some GC mechanism (that perhaps could be disabled). You can't
> build any dynamic system without GC.

Who's laying it on the "kernel" (call it what you want) now? 
Flipflop.


> See previous posts from frmap...

I will as soon as I can find time to download that 300k file at 2400 
bps.

Bye, JVS.