undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbitwize8y ago0 comments

The reason why Lisp machines failed is because, with compiler and CPU architecture improvements, "C machines" started trouncing Lisp machines in terms of performance, even at running Lisp code. Symbolics's last product was Genera running on a "C machine" architecture. This doesn't obviate your statements about library support, but I don't believe the dream of "Lisp from bare metal on up" is worth abandoning entirely.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

lisper8y ago· 3 in thread

What would be the advantage? Why put in all that work just to reinvent the wheel?

progman8y ago

I think one big advantage could be seemless integration of all applications. Genera on Lisp Machines [1] and McClim [2] illustrate how it works.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1878220

[2] https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/excite.html

In classical OS (Linux, Windows, Mac) the developer is responsible for seemless integration (in KDE or MS Office for instance). It is easy to break design guidelines here which causes ugly interoperation, or even lack of interoperation.

bitwizeOP8y ago

I don't know. Why do people still write from-scratch OS's in C when there's a perfectly good Linux? Why does musl exist?

tyingq8y ago

> Why does musl exist

At least in part, because of storage and memory constrained things like home routers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse