why is there not a lisp pc?
in [Lisp]
|
From: Tamas K Papp on 30 Dec 2009 14:33 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:51:45 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Tamas K Papp <tkpapp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe, but I am still not convinced that this was the main reason. >> First, the number of programmers is itself endogenous: programmers >> gravitate to languages which they find useful. > > Kind of, perhaps. Programmers use whatever language their boss says, or > what the free software project they've just joined uses. I doubt many > consciously chose their language, though some do. I agree with you. Scientists who program also tend to use widespread languages---usually the first language that was taught reasonably well to them---without any further thought. Very few make a conscious choice. > The Intel 80x86 architecture came to predominate for exactly one reason, > namely that it was chosen by IBM for their PC back in the early 1980s. > Microsoft's software predominates for exactly the same reason. Nobody > would claim that the 80x86 was particularly good; other 16-bit machines > of that era used the Motorola 68000 (the Atari ST, Amiga, the Apple > Mac). Since that time, better RISC chips have appeared, yet the 30 yo > Intel architecture is as entrenched as ever. If RISC chips couldn't > displace the 80x86, what chance did a Lisp Machine have? Again, I agree. Chip design and manufacturing exhibit significant economies of scale, so if a technology is entrenched for whatever reason, it will have a good chance of prevailing. If Company A sells 10^n times the CPUs Company B sells, then A can pour more money into the process, design new chips faster, and take advantage of Moore's law. Then you can buy the latest A chip using today's technology for the price of the latest B chip which lags a year behind, even though it would have beaten last year's A chip. The critical value of n is an interesting empirical question. But I am wondering if this pattern will hold if Moore's law breaks down. If you can't squeeze more bang into a single CPU, and multithreaded CPUs don't deliver the promised miracles either, then architectural choices for CPUs may matter again. I am not saying that Lisp Machines will be resurrected, but x86 may not be the only architecture around if it can be dominated---maybe in a niche. The above scenario would be more likely to happen if free software were more prevalent. If MS controls software, then they get to decide whether your new CPU architecture lives or dies. But if they don't, you may get away with rewriting a fraction of existing software (eg a compatibility layer, etc). >> I don't think we can explain how these architectures came to dominate >> without taking these factors into account, and when we do this, I would >> be surprised if the "Lisp had less programmers" story still retains a >> lot of explanatory power. > > You're right here, I think. However, let's put it this way: If the > number of competent Lisp programmers in the 1980s had been higher by a > factor of 100, I think we would still have lisp machines today. A related thought: anecdotal evidence suggests that Lisp makes certain programmers more productive for certain tasks. Current desktop environments have a lot of man-hours put into them, but if you are more productive, you can make a working desktop environment with a lot less effort. OTOH I think that this is precisely the kind of software that has a lot of nitty-gritty details that will take a lot of time, regardless of the language. If I were a super-rich and I wanted to finance the development of a Lisp machine, I would first aim for a successful "Lisp environment" (not a Lisp machine, but a Lisp-based OS on stock hardware, not unlike Movitz when/if it grows up). I would make it super-easy to contribute simple utilities, and provide a compatibility layer (that runs current desktop software, doesn't matter if it is 1/10 the speed). I would only experiment with Lisp-optimized hardware after I have a functioning ecosystem on x86. So having a Lisp Machine per se would be of secondary importance to me. But of course this is all a pipe dream :-) Tamas
From: Kaz Kylheku on 30 Dec 2009 18:32 On 2009-12-30, Mahesh Subramaniya <maheshexp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So, why do we need a lisp PC basically? What we need to do is to precisely define ``lisp PC''. I don't know what a ``lisp PC'' is. If I don't know what it is, then how can I tell whether or not I need one? It may be safe to assume that if I don't need any kind of PC at the moment, and if a ``lisp PC'' is a kind of PC, then I don't need a ``lisp PC''. > I'm a novice user in lisp. Trying to understand few things in the world > of Lisp. A machine programmed Lisp from the ground up has the potential to be more efficient in its use of resources, as well as more reliable and secure, than a machine with a conventional kernel programmed in a higher level assembly language. An all-Lisp system can be devised in such a way that there is no need for separate privileged and unprivileged modes of execution, and no virtual memory. That translates to performance.
From: gavino on 30 Dec 2009 21:30 On Dec 29, 3:21 am, "jos...(a)corporate-world.lisp.de" <jos...(a)lisp.de> wrote: > On 29 Dez., 07:58, gavino <gavcom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > why is there not a lisp pc for under $300? > > > with power of lisp could be quite grand.. > > \|||/ > (o o) > ,~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~~~, > | Please | > | don't feed the | > | TROLL! | > '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~~' > |__|__| > || || > ooO Ooo pants stainer! have you finished your open source world of warcraft clone in common lisp yet?
From: gavino on 30 Dec 2009 21:32 On Dec 29, 5:31 am, Tamas K Papp <tkp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:03:00 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > gavino <gavcom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> why is there not a lisp pc for under $300? > > > There once were lisp machines, in the 1980s. Look up "lisp machine" in > > wikipedia for some interesting history. > > I have a Dell laptop. It runs Lisp. That makes it a Lisp PC. > > > Indeed it could. But the demand for such a powerful machine is > > insufficient to pay enough for its development. > > I wish the garden center sold soil specifically for yellow tulips. I > just can't believe that "Miracle-Gro for Flowers" is good enough for > my purposes. I am sure I could do better with an expensive > special-purpose formula instead of the mass-produced general one. And > they could also carry special soil for pink azaleas, red geraniums, > etc. > > Tamas well you have a c+javascript+lisp+flash pc....
From: gavino on 30 Dec 2009 21:32
On Dec 29, 5:58 am, Espen Vestre <es...(a)vestre.net> wrote: > Victor <bob...(a)ua.fm> writes: > > Modern personal computers are able to run Lisp code, but PCs > > are not truly "Lisp Machines" as far as I see. > > Modern mobile phones aren't phones either, the "Phone" in the iPhone is > just another unix process... > -- > (espen) lisp mobile phone wow that would be awe some |