FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/11/83)
From: Ron <FISCHER@RUTGERS.ARPA> Forth and Lisp are both wonderful languages. Forth and Lisp are often described as like one another, and in spirit they are. However, the implementation of Forth is designed to keep overhead very low. As mentioned previously, Forth may fit in 16k bytes of code, but a real Lisp certainly wouldn't. Perhaps Mr. Pournelle felt that with the memory space of a typical personal computer expanding as it is, that Lisp would become more practical for personal use. Which brings up another point. What span of time were the predictions supposed to be correct for? They may be more reasonable when viewed as predicting farther off events. On the side of sarcasm however, this is a typical ploy of planners and predictors: look far enough into the future and things become hazy enough for even the wildest of predictions to sound feasible. I am more curious about whether the early grand visions of the Xerox Learning Research Group are getting closer or discarded, aka "Dynabook." How about a micro-codeable 32 bit personable machine with several meg bytes of fast and non-volatile memory, bitscreen, mice, etc., *in a notebook*. Would anyone out there like to revolutionize the industry? The current evolution of microcomputer products bores me. At the very beginning of the "microcomputer craze" everyone was amazed that they could build such a device at all. Then innovators grabbed a hold and the market exploded. Now things have collapsed into a degenerate heap, where the best anyone has to offer is either an IBM-PC or Apple clone that sells for slightly less than the original. It seems the advertisers / marketing people have gummed up the works by slapping "NEW AND IMPROVED!!" stickers on all the tired old designs. (ron) -------