Re: Re: Lisp OS

mikel evins <[email protected]> writes:

> This is not to argue that a Lisp OS should use the same sort of
> abstraction; rather, it is to argue that Plan 9 demonstrates how far
> the uniform application of a simplifying abstraction can get you. What
> I'm interested in, in this context, is this: what are the simplifying
> abstractions that are natural in Lisp? What Lisp features can collapse
> the complexity of a modern OS into something as simple as, or simpler
> than, Plan 9? Closures over streams, perhaps?

I'm not a Lisp expert but what about objects? Everything in Common
Lisp is an object, even classes. Could that be a "natural" abstraction
for a Lisp OS?

Klaus

-- 

                 Programming today is a race between software engineers
                 striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs
		 and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots.
\|/ ____ \|/     So far, the universe is winning.
"@'/ ,. \`@"                                                   (Richard Cook)
\_| \__/ |_/     
   \__U_/        Mail : [email protected]
                 WWW  : www.u-h-l.de
                 PGP  : 0x128F9DEC                 
                 ICQ  : 133448107

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAIUVdyaizchKPnewRAsGzAKCUbSqxO8oruuwzdzRXGmoNNTrfUACeNg+P
xEFztE6iigB+8HdMpD8Hwe4=
=gLLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----