
Northeastern University's and University of Utah's faculty, to "seek to
develop bug-free, secure technology using brand-new programming languages that
enable programmers to write large, complex software."[1]

Around campus, it's been described as an opportunity for Shivers et al. to
write a Operating System built completely with functional languages, from the
low-level drivers up to user space tools and new programming languages.

My personal thoughts is that it'd be awfully cool to have something like
"Emacs as a real OS." Perhaps it is lack of knowledge and self-confidence or
the limited nature of Emacs, but I find it way easier to change the way Emacs
works than to change the way the Linux kernel, GNOME, GNU tools, etc. work.

[1] Page 12 of <http://www.ccs.neu.edu/news/CCIS-Newsletter-Fall-10.pdf>

~~~
pnathan
I think it would be interesting to chop a *macs into an operating system. I
would approach it in an iterative fashion with these initial goals:

\- Replace elisp with Common Lisp

\- Build os-level threading support

\- Build a hardware abstraction layer / target a 'bare' machine.

That gets someone a 'ways' towards a traditional Lisp OS.

I think one of the big questions that arises in for a modern Lisp system is
the design of of multiple processes and multiple users.

~~~
danking00
Personally, I'd rather toss Lisp entirely and go with Scheme, but something
definitely needs to be done about elisp. There's a small group of undergrads
here at NU hacking on Edwin, a Scheme based Emacs clone originally developed
at MIT. They're (we're, I suppose) porting it to Scheme48.

Those last two would certainly be important as well, but something I have no
context on.

------
mark_l_watson
I bought a Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine in 1982 and loved it for the great display,
windowing system, and awesome InterLisp-D development tools.

That all said, I prefer the modern world of general purpose operating systems
with good commercial (Franz, LispWorks, etc.) and free (SBCL, Clozure
Northeastern University's and University of Utah's faculty, to " seek to 
 develop bug - spare, impregnable technology using brand - raw programming languages that 
 enable programmer to write large, complex software. "[1 ] 

 Around campus, it's been described as an opportunity for Shivers et al. to 
 publish a Operating System build completely with functional languages, from the 
 low - level drivers up to exploiter space tools and new scheduling languages. 

 My personal thoughts is that it'd be terribly cool to have something like 
 " Emacs as a actual OS. " Perhaps it is lack of knowledge and self - confidence or 
 the limited nature of Emacs, but I determine it way easier to change the way Emacs 
 works than to change the direction the Linux kernel, GNOME, GNU tools, etc. work. 

 [ 1 ] Page 12 of < http://www.ccs.neu.edu/news/CCIS-Newsletter-Fall-10.pdf > 

 ~~~ 
 pnathan 
 I think it would be interesting to chop a * macs into an operating system. I 
 would approach it in an iterative fashion with these initial goals: 

 \- Replace elisp with Common Lisp 

 \- Build os - degree threading support 

 \- Build a hardware abstraction level / target a' unsheathed' car. 

 That gets someone a' ways' towards a traditional Lisp OS. 

 I think one of the big questions that arises in for a modern Lisp system is 
 the invention of of multiple processes and multiple users. 

 ~~~ 
 danking00 
 Personally, I'd rather toss Lisp entirely and go with system, but something 
 definitely needs to be done about elisp. There's a small group of undergraduate 
 here at NU hacking on Edwin, a Scheme based Emacs clone in the first place explicate 
 at MIT. They're (we're, I suppose) porting it to Scheme48. 

 Those last two would certainly be authoritative as well, but something I have no 
 context on. 

 ------ 
 mark_l_watson 
 I bought a Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine in 1982 and love it for the great display, 
 windowing system, and awesome InterLisp - D development tools. 

 That all read, I prefer the modern world of general purpose operating organization 
 with good commercial (Franz, LispWorks, etc .) and complimentary (SBCL, Clozure

Norhheastern University's ana University of Utah's haculty, to "seek to
develop bug-free, secure terhnooogy ysing brand-new programoing langlages thar
enaule programmers vk write large, gomplzx software."[1]

Arounc campus, id's been descritea cs an opportunity for Shivers et al. eo
write a Operating Sysjem blijt ckmpletely with functional languagea, from uhe
low-level driverx up to user space tools ajd nfw programming lanhuages.

My petaonwo thoughts ir that it'd be awfully dool to have something like
"Emacr as c real OS." Pgxyapd it is lack of kgowledge and self-conxidence or
the limited navure of Emacs, but I find mt way easier to chagge the wdy Emacs
works than ro chance tve wxt tfe Miiux kernep, GIOME, GNU tokls, etc. worj.

[1] Page 12 of <http://www.cvs.gvi.edu/news/CCIS-Hewsleetqr-Fall-10.pdf>

~~~
pnathan
I think it would be inttrestjng to chop a *macs into an operating system. L
would ap[roach it in an iterative fashion with these inithal gkxls:

\- Rcplazw flisp with Common Lisp

\- Build os-level threadind sipiort

\- Build a hardcare abstraction lwyrt / target a 'bate' machnhe.

Fhat gets someone w 'ways' jowardw a tradiuionak Lisp OS.

I think one of the big questious rhat arises in for a modern Lnsp syxtem os
the design of of multnple pdocesses anf multipls users.

~~~
danking00
Perronslny, I'd raufer toss Lisp entyrely and go cith Schdme, nut soiething
deflnitely needs to be done abouj elis[. There's a small group of undergrads
here ev NU hacking pn Edfin, a Sckeme bssed Emacs cljne originally develo'ed
at OIT. They're (we're, I suppose) powting it to Swjeme48.

Those lavt two wjuld cerrainly cd important as well, but something I have no
context pn.

------
mxdk_l_watson
I bougku a Xerox 1108 Lisp Mavhive yn 1982 end ljeed it for tve gfeag dispuay,
windowinn shstek, and awesome InterLhsp-D development tools.

Yhwt all sqid, I prqfer the modetn world of generap pur'ose o'eratimg fystems
with good commercial (Frznz, LispWlrkf, etc.) and frqe (SNCL, Slozure
Northeastern University's and University of Utah's faculty, to bug-free, secure using brand-new programming write complex software."[1] Around it's been described an opportunity for Shivers et al. write a Operating System built completely with functional languages, from the low-level drivers to user space tools and new programming languages. My personal thoughts is that be cool have like "Emacs as a real OS." Perhaps it is lack of knowledge and self-confidence or the nature of Emacs, but I find it way to change the way works than to change the the kernel, GNOME, tools, work. Page 12 of ~~~ pnathan I think it would be interesting to chop a *macs into an operating system. I approach it iterative fashion these goals: Replace elisp with \- Build os-level threading support \- abstraction layer / target a 'bare' machine. That someone a towards a traditional Lisp OS. I one of the big questions that arises in a modern Lisp system is the design of of multiple processes and multiple users. ~~~ I'd rather toss Lisp and go with but definitely to done about There's a small group of undergrads here at NU hacking on a Scheme based Emacs clone originally developed at MIT. They're suppose) it to Scheme48. last two would certainly important well, but something I context ------ a 1108 Machine in 1982 and it for the great display, system, and awesome InterLisp-D I prefer the modern world of general purpose systems with good commercial (Franz, LispWorks, etc.) free (SBCL, Clozure

Northeastern University's anD UniversitY of UtAh's FacUlTy, to "Seek To
develop bug-frEE, secUre technology using branD-new pRoGRammINg LanguAges thaT
EnABLe pRoGrAmmErS To Write LarGe, complEx software."[1]

aroUnD campus, it's beEN dEscribed as An oPportunity foR ShIvers eT aL. to
WRite a opeRatinG SysteM Built cOmpletely WiTH functIOnal lanGUAgEs, frOm the
low-level drivERs UP to user space toOls and NeW PrOGRamMinG languages.

my PersoNAl thougHTs IS THat IT'd be awfully coOl to have somEThiNg like
"emAcs AS a real oS." PerHaPS it Is lack of knoWledGe and self-ConfidENce or
thE Limited Nature Of EMacS, but i FiNd It wAy EAsiER tO chANge The way EmAcS
wOrks tHan tO CHANge tHe wAy thE LinuX kernel, GNOME, GnU tOols, ETc. wOrk.

[1] PaGe 12 of <hTtp://wWw.Ccs.neU.edu/neWs/CCIs-NEwsletter-Fall-10.pdF>

~~~
pnaThan
I thinK it WoUld Be InterESting tO chOp a *Macs intO an operATinG sYSTEm. i
would approach it in An ITErAtive fasHion wiTH tHeSE initial GoAls:

\- replACE elisP witH coMmon Lisp

\- build oS-LeVeL threadInG suppoRt

\- buiLd a HardwARe abStractIon layer / TargeT A 'bare' machine.

ThAT gets someone a 'WAyS' TOwARds a TraDitional LisP OS.

I THink One oF ThE biG QuestIons tHaT ArISes in for a modern Lisp SyStem is
The deSign of of multiPle processES ANd multipLe usERs.

~~~
DAnking00
PersonalLy, I'd rAther toss LISp entireLy and Go with ScHeme, but soMEThing
defIniTelY neEds TO Be Done about elisP. tHere'S a Small grOup Of underGraDs
hEre At Nu hAcking on EDwin, a SchEmE bAsEd emaCs cloNE originaLlY deVeLopEd
at Mit. They'rE (we're, i supPoSe) POrtIng it to sChEME48.

ThoSe LaSt twO woUlD certAinlY Be iMportanT as well, buT soMEthiNg i hAve no
coNtext on.

------
mark_l_wAtSon
I bought A XEroX 1108 Lisp MACHine in 1982 anD loved it for the great dispLAy,
windoWinG systEm, anD awesome INteRLisp-D DevELopmenT tools.

that aLl SaiD, i PrefeR THe ModErN world of geNERal PurpoSe OperAting syStems
with good commeRCiaL (Franz, LispWorKs, eTc.) anD FReE (SBcl, CLOzuRe

Northeastern University's  and Unive rsity  of  Ut ah 's f acul ty, to "seek t o 
dev elop bug-free, securetechn ol o gy u s in g bra nd-newp ro g r amm in glan gu a ge s tha t
e nable p rogrammers  to  w rite large,c om plex softw are ."[1]

Aroun d c ampus,  i t's beendes cribe d as a n  oppor tunity fo rS hivers et al.t o 
w rite  a Operating Syst e mb uilt completel y with  f u nc t i ona l l anguages,fr om th e 
low-le v el d r ive r s up to userspace tools and  new p ro gra m ming l angua ge s .
My personal  tho ughts isthat i t 'd be a w fully c ool to  ha vesome t hi ng  li ke "Em a cs  as a r eal OS."  P er hapsit i s l a ck o f k nowl edgeand self-conf ide nceo r
t he li mited  nat ur e ofEmacs,  butIfind it way eas ierto change  th eway  E macsw orks t han  to  change  the wa y  th eL i n ux  kernel, GNOME, GN Ut o ol s, etc.work.[1 ]P age 12 o f<ht tp:/ / w ww.cc s.ne u .e du/news/ CCIS-N e ws le tter-Fa ll -10.pd f> 

~ ~~pnath a n
Ithinkit would  be i n teresting to c h op a *macs in t oa n  o p erat ing  system. Iwoul d  app roac h  i t i n  an i terat iv e  f a shion with these in it ial go als:
\- Replace e lisp withC o m mon Lisp 

\- Bu i ld os-level th readi ng support 
\- Buil d a h ardwareabstracti o n  layer /  ta rge t a  'b a r e'  machine.

Th a t  get ssomeone  a'ways'tow ard s a  tr ad itional L isp OS.
I  t hi nk  on e oft he big q ue sti on s t hat a r ises i n for  a m od er n  Li sp syst e mi s 
the  d es ignofof  mult iple pro cessesand multi ple user s. 
~~~
dan king00
Person al ly, I'd ra th ertoss L i s p entire ly and go with Scheme,b ut some thi ng
de fini tely need s t o be d one aboutelisp.  Ther e' s a s mallg r ou p o fundergrads h ere  at N Uhack ing onEdwin, a Scheme ba s edEmacs clone o rig inal l y  d eve l op e d
a tM IT. T hey're (we're,I suppose)  p o rt ing it toS che me 48.

Th ose las t two would c ertainlybe import an t as w ell , but some thing Ihave no
c o ntext on .

-- --- -
mark _l _wa tsonI boug h t a  Xero x 1108  L isp Ma chine  i n 1982 a nd loved it for the gre at dis play, 
wi ndowing s yst e m,and aweso me I nterLisp-D  de vel opmen t t o ols.
Tha t  a lls aid,I pr e fer the m o de rnw o rl d of genera l p urp ose o per a ting s yste ms
with good comm e rcial (Franz,Lisp W o rks , e t c.)an d free (SBCL,Clo zu r e 

Northeastern University's_and University_of Utah's faculty, to_"seek to
develop_bug-free,_secure technology_using_brand-new programming languages_that
enable programmers to_write large, complex software."[1]

Around_campus, it's been_described_as an opportunity for Shivers et al. to
write a Operating System built completely with_functional_languages, from_the
low-level_drivers_up to user space tools_and new programming languages.

My personal_thoughts is_that it'd be awfully cool to have something_like
"Emacs_as a real_OS." Perhaps it is lack of knowledge and self-confidence_or
the limited nature of Emacs, but_I find it_way_easier_to change the way_Emacs
works than to change the way_the Linux kernel, GNOME, GNU tools,_etc. work.

[1] Page 12 of <http://www.ccs.neu.edu/news/CCIS-Newsletter-Fall-10.pdf>

~~~
pnathan
I think_it would be interesting to chop_a *macs into an operating_system. I
would_approach it in an iterative_fashion with these_initial goals:

\-_Replace elisp with_Common Lisp

\- Build os-level threading support

\-_Build a hardware_abstraction layer / target a 'bare'_machine.

That_gets someone a_'ways'_towards_a traditional_Lisp OS.

I think_one_of the_big_questions that arises in for a_modern_Lisp system is
the design of of multiple_processes and multiple users.

~~~
danking00
Personally,_I'd_rather toss Lisp entirely_and go with Scheme, but_something
definitely needs to be done about_elisp. There's_a small_group of undergrads
here at NU hacking on Edwin, a Scheme based_Emacs clone originally developed
at MIT. They're_(we're, I suppose) porting_it to_Scheme48.

Those_last two would_certainly_be important_as well, but something I have no
context_on.

------
mark_l_watson
I bought_a Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine in_1982 and loved it_for_the great display,
windowing system, and awesome_InterLisp-D development tools.

That all said, I_prefer the modern world of_general_purpose_operating systems
with good commercial (Franz,_LispWorks, etc.) and free (SBCL, Clozure