🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7306@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin 
Johnson) writes:
> I am starting to write a paper dealing with Lisp machine architectures.
> I would like to get information on what hardware features have proven
> to be useful (cost-effective) and which were not.

I'd STRONGLY warn against succumbing to the popular notion that 
"cost-effective" is the only measure of whether a particular hardware 
architecture is "useful" or not.

In article <7306@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin 
Johnson) writes:
> The Lisp Machine operating system and interface, while an important
> part of the machine, are of lesser significance.

On this point I'll have to disagree with you 100%.  Given a decent OS and 
human interface, the Lisp Machine hardware is almost insignificant.  
Consider that I can run Allegro CL for the Macintosh on a Macintosh IIci 
and receive performance comparable to that of, say, a Macintosh II 
equipped with a MacIvory II coprocessor card.

In article <7306@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin 
Johnson) writes:
> (also, does anyone know of a reference to the TI Lisp chip (Ivory?)
> or other recent Lisp architectures?)

Ivory isn't TI's chip; it's Symbolics'.  We, of course, co-market the 
microExplorer II workstation (a Macintosh II with TI's Explorer 
coprocessor) with TI, so you should be able to get TI Lisp chip info 
either from our marketing folks or TI's.

For Ivory details, contact Symbolics.

__________________________________________________________________________
Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they 
believe what I believe or vice-versa.
__________________________________________________________________________
C++ -- The language in which only friends can access your private members.
__________________________________________________________________________