Brian's Arrow System

[Maneesh Yadav]

On Wed, 26 May 1999, Tril wrote:

> On Mon, 24 May 1999, Ken Evitt wrote:
> 
> > Is the Arrow System meant to be a framework for the TUNES operating
> > system/language or is that what it is meant to be?
> 
> Here is the direct answer to your question that ends up probably making
> less sense than the other answer:
> 
> No and yes.  No because there is no single framework for tunes, therefore
> Arrow won't be "THE" framework.  Yes because there are many frameworks,
> and Arrow will be one of them.  TUNES is the connection between the many
> frameworks, and it is also inside all of them. (don't blame me, it's the
> language's fault!)
> 
> Here is the answer I wrote that avoids the question but probably answers
> the question you meant to ask instead, "What is the road map for the
> progress of tunes?"
> 
> The Arrow System is definitely expressible enough to include the entire
> TUNES system.  However, Brian has some goals above and beyond the
> requirements of TUNES, which Arrow is intended to address.  I think TUNES
> is part of what Brian wants, then he intends to build more after that.
> (Brian, you're the only one I know who is more ambitious than the tunes
> project!)  So let's help him with the TUNES part, then any of you who want
> can go on with the rest...(don't ask what it is, because if he could say
> it in English, he would have already, I believe)
> 
> Compared to my project (tunes.lsp) which is also intended to be a
> framework for TUNES, well, the goal is that my work and Arrow will
> integrate at some point, and be interchangeable.
> 
> Compared to Retro, when the integrated tunes.lsp+Arrow runs on retro, it's
> time to phase out Retro and implement low-level stuff in TUNES.  (This
> could be as basic as porting Retro to use higher-level concepts, or a
> completely new implementation.  Probably some people will do one, and
> others will do the other.)

<Tril, forige the negativness, but I sense a real lack of reality in the
above>

You have no idea what the components you mentioned are going to look like;
yet you have the exact way they're are going to be integrated together?
Now why are you going to bother bootstrapping to a new system when there
are plenty of existing (better) ones?  Your goign to tie all your code
down into some un-advanced Retro API and then make the effort to write in
TUNES?  You have not been at all definite in terms of your framework, as
some of our conversations of IRC have indicated (that may have changed by
now, but somehow I doubt that)...and I would be surprised if you really
understood the Arrow system (I certainly don't, but I know what really
understanding it (assuming it's worth anything at all) entails); how can
you possilby map out a chronology for integration when you have no idea
what these things are?

 
> Then all these other projects that are hanging around can be integrated,
> too :)  Prism, Clem, Self/R...
> 
> So what I said is my plan, perhaps it will work that way, or not.
> This summer I am taking no classes so I can work harder on tunes (that is
> the theory, anyway).
> 
> David Manifold <dem@tunes.org>
> This message is placed in the public domain.
>