Alan Kay wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:44:33 -0700 (PDT) > The CRISP was too slow, and had other problems in its details. Sakoman liked > it ...
Thanks for the information! Just looking at the papers about it I had the impression that it would be reasonably faster than an ARM at the same clock frequency while having a VAX-like code density. I was going to suggest that implementing CRISP on an FPGA could be an interesting project for one of the grad students at my university, but that doesn't seem to be the case. A rather different processor for running C (for floating point intensive code) was the WM architecture: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~wm/wm.html http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.45.1092 I only heard about it because it was the inspiration for the memory interface in the version of Chuck Thacker's Tiny Computer used in the Beehive multicore project. This, unfortunately, is probably too complex for a student in my group. > Bill Atkinson did Hypercard ... Larry made many other contributions at Xerox > and Apple I know that Bill was the developer, but had the impression that Larry had done what was needed to move from project to product. He certainly was the one promoting it pre-launch in the old Smalltalk forums at BIX (Byte Information eXchange). > To me the Dynabook has always been 95% a "service model" and 5% physical > specs (there were three main physical ideas for it, only one was the tablet). 2015 is almost here - time to move to the "computer in glasses" model (lame "Back to the Future" reference, but I know you will agree). BGB wrote on Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:23:07 -0700 > the TSS?... > > it is still usable on x86 in 32-bit Protected-Mode. I was thinking about about the LDT and GDT (Local Descriptor Table and Global Descriptor Table). These still work, of course, but the current implementations are so bad that it is faster to do the same thing 100% in software. You do lose the security aspect, however. It is funny that the wish to put the TSS to good use was the big motivation for Linux. The resulting non portability (which is a lot less important now than then) was one of the main complaints in Andrew Tanenbaum's famous early rant about the OS. The first attempt to port Linux (to the Alpha, if I remember correctly) required completely rewriting that part and the changes were quickly brought back to the Intel version. Marcel Weiher wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:33:07 +0100 > I have a little Postscript interpreter/scratchpad in the AppStore > (TouchScript, > http://itunes.apple.com/en/app/touchscript/id398914579?mt=8 ). Admittedly, it > was mostly a trial balloon to see if something like that would be accepted, > and > it was (2nd revision so far). And somewhat surprisingly a (very) few people > even seem to be using it! > > Sharing is via iTunes. Thanks for the tip! I see your description is "Use the Postscript(tm) language to express your ideas and see the results on your iPhone. Transfer your creations to your computer via iTunes sharing as either PNG or Postscript documents." It is likely that the reviewers considered that "Postscript documents" means a text file (like a .pdf or .doc). The user who gave you a bad review certainly did (another user corrected him/her). So this doesn't tell us what Apple would do with a language that allows you to share programs. David Harris wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:35:06 -0700 about Wolfram|Alpha mobile Thanks, but that is exactly what I was calling "just a terminal" and "a waste". -- Jecel _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
