From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3cd3b8571c28b75f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-29 08:48:00 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail
From: j-anthony@rcn.com (Jon S. Anthony)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A Customer's Request For Open Source Software
Date: 29 Aug 2003 12:10:55 -0400
Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com
Message-ID: <m3u180mokw.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
References: <3F44BC65.4020203@noplace.com>
 <20030822005323.2ff66948.david@realityrift.com>
 <vkc1b.26226$Cd2.21231@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <20030822020403.625ffbf5.david@realityrift.com>
 <Mkd1b.20040$N37.9078@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F4657AD.1040908@attbi.com>
 <Prv1b.3720$PJ2.319043@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <e2e5731a.0308221829.3d16a7b@posting.google.com> <3F4828D9.8050700@attbi.com>
 <bRv3b.692$c12.9302@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> <3F4EA616.30607@attbi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYfabYsbf2gLqfi0Qfdsstr3yyrCEoNRLi/W51yV6/7mxR7EiAPrMho
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Aug 2003 15:47:24 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41946
Date: 2003-08-29T15:47:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> writes:

Re: Multics memory stuff...

Sounds like a bit like a subset of a Lisp machine/OS.

> Just one other example.  Multics of course had dynamic linking, but
> the form of dynamic linking was much different from what we think of
> today. During development, you never invoked a linker.  You just had
> all of the the code segments of your program lying around, pointed at
> the main program--or some other entry point, and said run.  If you got
> to a point in your program where you called a procedure you hadn't
> written yet? The operating system would tell you that a call had been
> made to a segment it couldn't find.  You could then run emacs, write
> the code, compile it, then--and only then--tell the OS where to find
> the code. Your program would continue running from the point where it
> had stopped.  Once you had a complete, debugged program, you often
> invoked the binder, and put all your pieces together in one segment.
> Of course, there were probably lots of pathnames that connected to the
> OS, or to other subsystems, etc., that you left unresolved in the
> bound version.

This, of course, is definitely a part of a Lisp OS.  Actually this is
still available in CL implementations even on current (primitive)
state of the art HW...

/Jon