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

[Marcus Petersson]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:

> macroprocessing,
Can be extrememly useful. However, I would think that run-time macro
capability clashes with static compiling, so dynamic compiling might be
useful to achieve good performance.

Unfortunately, once you go outside of any specific language environment,
it becomes less obvious how to do macros. I'm not sure if it can even be
done, generic functions or callable objects might be the closest we get.

Anyway, all this stuff you mentioned is probably good to know. Some of it
are unknown to me (like "constraint logic" and "aspect-oriented"). Some of
it are not relevant in a low-level object manager. Some are simply beyond
the scope of what we are capable of, though it would have been useful.


> My paper "metaprogramming and free availability of sources",
> 	http://fare.tunes.org/articles/ll99/
> might give you a gist of the "big picture", but you it takes
> learning about many of those techniques to have a good grasp of it.

Got it. Will read it some time.

> There is hope for you: back in 1992, I was mostly the same C++-brainwashed
> programmer as most every other computist. I grew up, since. But it takes
> some desire to learn, maybe with a pinch of humility (who isn't INTP, here?).

Not that it matters, but I had barely touched C++ before I started writing 
the object mamanger. That makes me more ignorant than brainwashed.


> I don't know what led you to post to this list, but it suggests you have
> enough curiosity to learn.

I got the impression Tunes and KOSH shared some ideals, but I may have 
been mistaken. Tunes has a deep scientific foundation, much more so than
I had imagined, even though I've followed you for some years.

KOSH's (technical) goals are more shallow: To replace the Unix philosophy
"everything is a file" with "everything is an object". To define an API
that runs on top of many platforms. To build an OS based on independant
objects, each filling a unique role. To whipe out the imagined border
between the OS and the applications.

In a world where Windows, POSIX and a few other (most of them C or C++
 based) are the most commonly used APIs, you don't have to be very good
to be better. Of course, Tunes would go many steps beyond...


> > And still it what everyone uses. With current system there are many things
> > that can't be done without going through a C interface.
> >
> You are totally confused between  interfacing with C (through a FFI),
> using C as a target (have you seen C code produced by Chicken, Stalin,
> Gambit, Bigloo, Mercury, or any of these foo->C implementation?),
> and integrating with C in direct style.

Let's remove that confusion then. I meant the first, interfacing with C.


> Choosing a system because it is mainstream,
> notwithstanding its technical merit or lack thereof is politics.

Hmm... you forgot the practical side. Availabilty matters.


> 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)

> Ever heard of LISP machines?

Yup. Never seen on though. Do you have one at home?


> > Why do you say that? Parameter objects are just a way of packaging
> > parameters, and has nothing to do with currying, AFAIK.
> "Way of packaging parameters", "nothing to do with currying". Nice oxymoron.

I have no idea why you say that. You must have some other definition of
currying. Here's a quote from some Tunes pages:

  There is a way in which unary higher-order functions can be used to
  emulate multiple-parametered functions. This technique is very
  interesting and is called "currying".

A parameter object is merely used to make an atom of several parameters,
not to make a macro from a function and some constants. Or maybe there's
something more to currying I haven't read.

> You're very confused. Learn about semantics.
> Maybe read my draft paper "Why a new OS".

*shrug*  Nothing controversial there, just wish it wasn't so long.


> >> PS: since you are in Chalmers

I am not.

> To Tunesers: this kind of message suggests that our website doesn't guide
> newcomers well enough. Anyone wants to take it in his hands?

You might also consider to try to act a little less hostile at new posters
in the future, even if they ask "stupid" questions. Not that I mind much,
but others might, and be scared away. Not the most rewarding attitude.
Just a tip. Anyway, I better stop wasting your time now.

Marcus
------------------------------------
 If you find that life spits on you
 calm down and pretend it's raining