Would Tunes be interested in this Object manager...?

[Francois-Rene Rideau]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 05:02:52PM +0200, Marcus Petersson wrote:
> I would think that run-time macro
> capability clashes with static compiling,
Not at all. One man's runtime is another man's compile-time.
On the contrary, macros allow to move to compile-time
things that would otherwise be done at runtime.
Moreover, Clams got Legs! (see on Alan Bawden's page).

> [...] not relevant in a low-level object manager.
A low-level object manager is itself something not relevant.
Objects are irrelevant at the low-level.

> That makes me more ignorant than brainwashed.
Well, then I recommend you learn.

> KOSH's (technical) goals are more shallow: To replace the Unix philosophy
> "everything is a file" with "everything is an object". [...]
Already been done. Squeak or Self or Oberon already do it
better than a "low-level object manager" ever will.
I invite you to use these systems, or at least not to reinvent them
less well than they already are.

> Let's remove that confusion then. I meant the first, interfacing with C.
Well, then don't write your software in C, then.
Prototype it in Lisp, Caml, Haskell, or whatever;
once you get the semantics right, interfacing to C will be the easy part.

>> Choosing a system because it is mainstream,
>> notwithstanding its technical merit or lack thereof is politics.
> Hmm... you forgot the practical side. Availabilty matters.
For some reason, you don't want to understand.
"practical" doesn't mean anything. It's just a fallacious word for "good".
Of course, it's "practical". Every choice is "practical".
It's still a political issue (call it social or economical, if you prefer),
rather than a technical one.

>> Why do you think people use PCs or Windows?
> a) because they are there (and relatively cheap)
> b) because it's there (and relatively useful, i.e many apps)
See? Economical issues. And why is it this way? Because there's
more competition here than other places - political issue.
And why is it still not so good? Because of intellectual property -
still political issue.

The point is: if you're a small innovating guy,
you don't have politics behind you, anyway
-- so your only leverage is technique,
and your better be excellent technically.

>> Ever heard of LISP machines?
> Yup. Never seen on though. Do you have one at home?
Yes. http://fare.tunes.org/LispM.html

>> "Way of packaging parameters", "nothing to do with currying". Nice oxymoron.
> I have no idea why you say that. [...]
Currying is a way of packaging parameters.

> maybe there's something more to currying I haven't read.
If you think that packaging first, applying afterwards is fundamentally
different from applying as you package, consider
	\x1..xn f -> f x1..xn

>>>> PS: since you are in Chalmers
> I am not.
Well, sorry, then. Your email address seemed to indicate you were.

> You might also consider to try to act a little less hostile at new posters
> in the future, even if they ask "stupid" questions.
I'm not hostile. Actually, I'm trying to help you a lot.
If you want to know what hostility is,
try reading Erik Naggum on comp.lang.lisp
-- and even then, if you read well,
you'll see that he's actually being helpful.
Hostility is in your brain.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[  TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System  | http://tunes.org  ]
Laziness is mother of Intelligence. Father unknown. [Rumor has it it's Greed.]
		-- Faré