From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <448B53DF.4010602@lanl.gov> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:21:03 -0600 From: Ronald G Minnich User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 References: <20060609222222.E4AFD294C1@mail.bitblocks.com> <5890eb0cb7b6853fe9a78c321fcc7e5e@quanstro.net> <8ccc8ba40606100651u78738619q7e401a4ab2dfaddd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40606100651u78738619q7e401a4ab2dfaddd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6797b5a8-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Francisco J Ballesteros wrote: >> i have no experience with lisp machines, but i'm fairly confident that >> it is not true that s-expressions are processes. >> >> did lisp machines even do multiprogramming? >=20 >=20 > I used them. They were nice. For those who didn=C2=B4t tried them, quit= e > a bit like emacs. Not too modular, that is what I meant. In Plan 9 > processes and file interfaces lead to highly modular systems without > much effort. I=C2=B4m now addict to that, and wouldn=C2=B4t like to loo= se it. We had lisp machines on our CM-2 years ago. What killed them? The SPARCs came in and ran all the LISP faster. They say in a corner after that. I loved 'em, but ... ron