Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 04:24:56 +0100 From: Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: OT: non-Unix history (Was: FreeBSD vs linux) Message-ID: <3A78D708.5F5873C8@nisser.com> References: <14957.31196.939559.889627@guru.mired.org> <3A6F43F7.E43C6CA0@nisser.com> <14959.23870.728403.859934@guru.mired.org> <3A78BA39.8A14F8F@nisser.com> <14968.49854.189652.128754@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Meyer wrote: > > I've moved this to -chat, as it's off topic for -questions. Fine, but I unsubscribed chat some time ago. > ... > I would suggest you read the full thing before commenting on it. Both > approaches described in Gabriel paper are KISS approaches. I don't > know of any names to describe them, other than the ones used there. At > least one of those - Do The Right Thing - is in common use, but I'm > not sure if that's where it originated. Proper suggestion, but who has the time to read 'all'? Anyway, I've been told KISS originated (at least) as a term used by the US infantry - genie troops - during WW2. > Exactly - what are you looking at? Remeber, an OS - or a programming > language - may be a product, but it's not a solution. It's a tool for That, too, is a boundary question. If the goal is world peace and no more hunger all the rest are mere products... > I'm not sure what you think they meant by CL, but they actually meant > Common Lisp. Both CL and Scheme came from the LISP community, and had > a LISP-like syntax on an Algol-like structure. Not quite. At least, as far as I know. My first introduction(s) to CS was by a book about designing TTL (and core :) computers as well as one by a Dutch professor about teaching Algol '68. Now Algol was about block structures, something traditional. John McCarthy's LISP OTOH was about Lambda calculus. Though not Typed Lambda Calculus whereas Algol was in fact typed. In as far as typing went in those days. Mind you, polymorphism and overloading were concepts introduced in the early '60s. CL is LISP extended and standardized as far as can be. Not KISS. Scheme, in contrast, just took one aspect of LISP - can't remember which, most likely closures - and extended just that. That is KISS. > On purpose. Read the paper. Did, too <g>. Just don't agree with all of it. > Well, of course worse is better says that KISS will win the battle - > both methodologies are KISS methodologies. Yeah, well, when Windows gets mentioned... > They only say the same thing if you never use tools you didn't create > yourself. Well, maybe. But some of the things you ascribe to Windows could also be ascribed to, say, MVS. I tend to look at some of those 'success stories' as signs of the times. More a matter of fashion and timing than anything else. Not to mention location. Just imagine Bill Gates having been born in Beijing! He would've been (materially) successful, no doubt! But... > In '93, there were more VMS systems around than any single Unix > platform. Sure, there may have been more Unix systems, but you > couldn't write a "Unix version" of a competitive product and sell > that, you had to have a SunOS version, and a Solaris version, and an > HP version, and an Ultrix version, and an OSF version, and a MIPS > version, and .... Hm. In that same '93 we also had the heralded - by Bill Gates, no less! - OS/2 besides DOS and Windows 3.x. So you were saying? > These days, VMS seems to have been replaced by NT, whereas a few of > the Unix versions are gone, and have been replaced by various Linux > distributions and of course the BSDs. As have DOS, OS/2, Win-16x, Win CE, Win... Let's face it, porting "Windows" apps is breaking glass, mostly. > Of course, those are all just variants of ITS, done by people who > didn't get it. So what? So it's better than punched cards, that is! ;). I'm just pointing out, at least in this message, that there's a whole world of differences between a technical point of view and a marketing point of view. Whether WordStar was KISS or WordPerfect is a moot point since Word rules the day. At least this day, who knows what tomorrow'll bring? So to explain the world that is from the surmised design principles underlying said products is moving onto shaky territory to say the least. Is the world that is due to the design principles or to the fact that BG wasn't born in Beijing after all? Which had the most impact? Who's to say? We can debate the impact of Algol not having had the equivalent of LISP's EVAL() statement to our hearts content, yet would that statement - or even the design principles underlying the choice of whether or not to include that statement - account for the advent of C or Pascal. Neither of which have an EVAL() statement, b.t.w. BASIC could've had! Heck, even COBOL. Within the context of design principles LISP is a very elegant design. Even though it does not fully adhere to Lambda Calculus' (dated somewhere '38-ish. Forgotten the name, much like Steele's first name :) principles. So not KISS. OTOH, neither was Algol. Just take its for statement! Then again, ever looked at Windows closely? Hm. Where's Forth anyway? Could've given LISP a run for its money regarding KISSiness! How about APL? Sure, SQL sorta survived but that's mostly - me thinks - due to the fact no set algebra or calculus products (other than LEAP) have seen the light of day. Well... either that, or it's marketing! Sure, you could make the argument that SQL rules the day coz it's way more KISS than either hierarchical (like IMS) or network (think DBTG) databases, but it isn't as KISS as KISS can be! A thing like LEAP beats it hands down. And whistling dixie to boot. Again I find it more likely to presume that SQL (and Sequel and QBE) came at just the right time with just the right note to carry the day. Sure, they are KISS. But back in '80 nobody and I do mean nobody - barring the odd sole ;) - looked at it. Never mind believed in it! Still they all ended up using it. Because of simplicity? Maybe. 't would be nice to think so <g>. Roelof -- toying @ http://surug.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A78D708.5F5873C8>