|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
I knew right after I posted that I needed to add a clarification about the
disassembler, but was too tired to add it then. I was addressing the potential
argument that a Lisp Machine ran LISP natively and therefore LISP could be
considered the OS. Whether or not that would be a valid argument if a LispM did
execute LISP directly, the disassembler shows what the machine instructions that
hardware is built for actually look like, and demonstrate that underneath
everything is a LISP compiler that does translate the source code into machine
instructions.
But that is peripheral, because I see that you were not arguing that the machine
executed LISP directly.
Instead, I finally see what your position actually is, and it explains what we
have been arguing about. It appears to be just a matter of terminology. I agree
that the original operating systems on the Lisp Machines, leading up to the OS
named Genera, are great examples of object-oriented operating systems and prior
art for the Apple patents. I agree that being written entirely in the LISP
language that those operating systems could be called LISP OSs. I disagree that
it is correct to therefore say that LISP is an operating system as well as a
programming language. If you want to talk about a LISP OS, that's fine with me.
I just say that if you say "LISP" in stead of "LISP OS" then
you are not using the words correctly.
Hmm, I just went back to re-read your original statements that I have been
disagreeing with:
"LISP was the first OO OS."
and
"LISP is both a programming language and an OS. I used to work on a LISP
computer. It was special hardware, a LISP machine, and the OS was LISP written
in LISP."
I would not have argued if the first statement had said "The Lisp Machines
had the first OO OS" or "The first OO operating system was written in
LISP" or even "A LISP OS was the first OO OS".
Even the link you provided for a Google search for Lisp OS does not support your
use of the phrase "LISP OS" as if it names anything specific. The hits
find an article on Lisp-Based OSes, which is the kind of phrasing that I am
using, and Genera, and some other more recent attempts at starting projects to
write an OS in LISP including one that is named the Lisp OS project. But nothing
that shows the use of "LISP" as the name of the OS for the Lisp
Machine.
If we still disagree about whether it is correct to refer to a LISP OS as just
"LISP" then I'm comfortable with leaving it at that. We seem to agree
on all of the fundamental points.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
