[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gc-by-area and host uptimes
Snail Mail Address: American Microsystems Inc. (A wholly owned
subsidiary of Gould Inc.) CAD Research Lab. P.O.
Box 967 Twain Harte, CA 95383
Phone Number: (209)586-7422
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 89 19:43:34 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Kenneth Forbus)
I don't necessarily beleive that Symbolics (or any company for
that matter) always has the insight to work on only the things with
the widest impact. Sometimes companies misjudge the relative
impact of different alternatives and sometimes they just plain ignore
the impact issues and work on things
based upon their whims. Now some things that Symbolics is working on
clearly do have far greater impact than mark-sweep-gc. Like lower-cost
higher-performance hardware like Ivory. On the other hand, there have
been some significant development efforts by Symbolics, ones which
I assume take more effort than mark-sweep-gc, which I think have far
less impact than it. For example: the Fortran and Pascal compilers,
Joshua, Concordia, the document examiner, Statice, most of the
features of dynamic windows besides infinite scrolling, ...
I agree with Jeff 100%. If the XL-400 had come out at the same time
as the Explorer-II, Symbolics would be in alot better shape now. And
given the increases in speeds of generic unix boxes, who will need an
I'm not Symbolics, but if I were, I would be pouring heavy effort into
convincing Sun or IBM to pay for porting the Symbolics environment to
As neat as the Ivory is, if I count my Lisp MIPs right, chips like the
Motorola 88000 and Intel 486 are faster than Ivory and surely much less
expensive and more widely supported (or will be soon at least).
I say, let the other buggers make the hardware and let Symbolics
concentrate on Great software.