Christopher.Young@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU (07/10/90)
We are interested in possibly using micro explorers in a distrbuted system. When one communicates with a microsexplorer, does it behave like an explorer or a mac? In related questions, I also wonder if anybody can answer the following questions: + does graphics code written on an Explorer using the graphics system work on a microexplorer? + does code (outside of graphics code) written on an Explorer work well on a Sun with Lucid commonlisp? + does a symbolics board for a sun provide any advantage over a sun without a symbolics board? (ie. does it process lisp code better, and if so, how much better?) + Are there any intricacies in communicating between a combination of any of the following: Explorers, Symbolics, Suns, Microexplorers. Thank you. -- Chris. (cycy@ri.cmu.edu)
snicoud@ATC.BOEING.COM (Stephen L. Nicoud) (07/11/90)
Date: 9 Jul 90 23:54:57 GMT
From: Christopher.Young@isl1.ri.cmu.edu
We are interested in possibly using micro explorers in a distrbuted system.
When one communicates with a microsexplorer, does it behave like an explorer or
a mac?
In related questions, I also wonder if anybody can answer the following
questions:
+ does graphics code written on an Explorer using the graphics system work on
a microexplorer?
Yes, it should run just fine. I haven't really used a microExplorer that
much, so I'm sure many others can comment on any difficulties.
+ does code (outside of graphics code) written on an Explorer work well on a
Sun with Lucid commonlisp?
If written in Common Lisp, it shouldn't be too difficult to port, but may
require a little effort. Pathname stuff is a likely area to bite you.
+ does a symbolics board for a sun provide any advantage over a sun without
a symbolics board? (ie. does it process lisp code better, and if so, how much
better?)
The symbolics board for a sun (UX400S) runs Genera just like a Symbolics
Lisp Machine. (Of course it depends what processor your Symbolics Lisp
machine uses if you just want to compare speeds. The 36XX Symbolics Lisp
Machines are probably slower, while the XL400 & XL1200 are probably faster
than the UX400S.)
Don't know about the MacIvory (Symbolics board in a Mac). The UX400S does
not interact with any other lisp on the Sun (lucid, allegro,...), so their
is no advantage there.
+ Are there any intricacies in communicating between a combination of any of
the following: Explorers, Symbolics, Suns, Microexplorers.
Don't forget the MacIvory or the Explorer LX (Explorer with a 68020
coprocessor running UNIX) or the Explorer MP (up to four Explorer boards on
one Nubus).
The embeds will probably have a tighter coupling and thus faster
communication. NFS, RPC, XDR, TCP/IP, and other network protocols are
supported by all the machines you've listed. Additionally, they all
support X window servers and clients.
Thank you.
-- Chris. (cycy@ri.cmu.edu)
Steve
--
Stephen L. Nicoud <snicoud@atc.boeing.com> uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud
Boeing Advanced Technology Center for Computer Sciences