Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 4 Issue 191
AIList Digest Saturday, 20 Sep 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 191
Today's Topics:
AI Tools - Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Sep 86 17:35:52 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpcnoe!jad@hplabs.hp.com (John Dilley)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics? [vs. Tek 4400 series]
> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
> ...
> 3) People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.
I have a file of quotes, one of which has to do with this
problem Xerox seems to have. I've heard great things about
Dandelion/Interlisp, and their Smalltalk environments, but have
never seen one of these machines in "real life" (whatever that
is). Anyway, the quote I was referring to is:
"It doesn't matter how great the computer is if nobody buys it. Xerox
proved that."
-- Chris Espinosa
And while we're at it ... remember Apple?
"One of the things we really learned with Lisa and from looking at what
Xerox has done at PARC was that we could construct elegant, simple systems
based on just a bit map..."
-- Steve Jobs
Seems like Xerox needed more advertising or something. It's a
shame to see such nice machines go unnoticed by the general
public, especially considering what choices we're often left with.
-- jad --
John A Dilley
Phone: (303)229-2787
Email: {ihnp4,hplabs} !hpfcla!jad
(ARPA): hpcnoe!jad@hplabs.ARPA
Disclaimer: My employer has no clue that I'm going to send this.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Sep 86 17:58:23 GMT
From: gatech!royt@seismo.css.gov (Roy M Turner)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
In response to a prior posting by me, Marty (mkent@violet.berkely.edu) writes:
>
> As a long-term user of Interlisp-D, I'd be very interested in hearing an
>*informed* comparison of it with ZetaLisp. However, I'm not particularly
>interested in hearing what an experienced Zetalisp user with a couple of
>hours of Interlisp experience has to say on the topic...
> ...
Who, me? :-)
If I was unclear in my posting, I apologize. I have had a bit more than two
hours of experience w/ Dandelions. I used them in a class I was taking, and
also was partly responsible for helping new users and for maintaining some
of the software on them. Altogether about 4 months of fairly constant use.
Another posting said we were using outdated software; that is undoubtedly
correct, as we just got Coda; we were using Intermezzo. Some problems
are probably fixed. However, we have not received the new ip-tcp from
Xerox...but, what do you expect with free machines? :-)
Roy
Above opionions my own...'course, they *should* be everyone's! :-)
Roy Turner
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!royt
------------------------------
Date: 12 Sep 86 14:58:07 GMT
From: wdmcu%cunyvm.bitnet@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
In article <3500016@uiucdcsp>, hogge@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU says:
>Once you learn the help mechanisms (which aren't bundled all that nicely and
>are rarely visible on the screen), your opinion of the user interface will
>grow monotonically with use. If you are interested in having more visible
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you please define this word in this context.
Thanks.
(This is a serious question)
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Bill Michtom - work: (212) 903-3685 home: (718) 788-5946 */
/* */
/* WDMCU@CUNYVM (Bitnet) Timelessness is transient */
/* BILL@BITNIC (Bitnet) */
/* */
/* Never blame on malice that which can be adequately */
/* explained by stupidity. */
/* A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. */
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
Date: 12 Sep 86 07:31:00 GMT
From: uiucdcsp!hogge@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
>> Four days *might* be enough time to get familiarize yourself with the help
>> mechanisms, if that's specifically what you were concentrating on doing.
>
>Four days to learn the help mechanisms? Come on, an acceptable user
>interface should give you control of help within minutes _not days_.
>Seriously folks, it took me less than 10 seconds to learn about
>ZMACS's apropos on the old CADRs and before the end of the day, I knew
>about a lot more. Have you ever used the "help" key?
>software isn't much different from the CADR's. I'll grant that the
>lispm's presentation of information isn't that obvious or elegant but
>it isn't stone age and doesn't require 4 days to get a handle on.
There's more subtle help available on the machine than just the help key,
and my experience is that it takes a long time for one to learn the
mechanisms that are there. The HELP key *is* the main source of help, but not
the only source. Examples include: 1. use of Zmacs meta-point to find
examples of how to do things (such as hack windows) from the system source,
2. use of c-/ in the Zmacs minibuffer for listing command completions (and
what a drag if you don't know about this command) 3. the importance of
reading who-line documentation 4. use of the Apropos function to hunt down
useful functions, as well as WHO-CALLS 5. use of the various Lisp Machine
manufacturer's custom help mechanisms, such as the Symbolics flavor examiner
and documentation examiner, or TI's Lisp-completion input editor commands and
Suggestions Menus.
The Lisp Machine is a big system, and there's lots of good help available.
But it isn't trivial learning how to get it nor when to seek it.
--John
------------------------------
Date: 12 Sep 86 14:42:58 GMT
From: ihnp4!wucs!sbc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steve Cousins)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
In article <322@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> mob@mit-amt.UUCP writes:
>... It is useful and
>manipulable but didn't look intended to be programmed by anyone just
>off the street. If you want to learn the internals of the user
>interface, _then_ i'll grant you four days (and more).
>
>--Mario O. Bourgoin
I think you could argue that *no* machine (AI or otherwise) can be programmed
by anyone just off the street :-). I haven't used the Symbolics, but my
view of the Dandelion has changed drastically since taking a course on it
by Xerox. The interface is very powerful and well-integrated, but the
"infant mortality curve" (the time to get good enough not to crash the
machines) is somewhat high. [Disclaimer: These machines are supposed to
be much better when networked than stand-alone. My change in attitude
occurred just as we got ours on the network, and I'm not sure how much
to attribute to the class, and how much to attribute to the network].
I like the Dandelion now, but the first 4 days did not give me a good
impression of the machine. There is a lot to say about learning a new machine
from a guru...
Steve Cousins ...ihnp4!wucs!sbc or sbc@wucs.UUCP
Washington University
------------------------------
Date: 15 Sep 86 12:58:18 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!watmum!rgatkinson@caip.rutgers.edu
(Robert Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics? [vs. Tek 4400 series]
In article <580001@hpcnoe.UUCP> jad@hpcnoe.UUCP (John Dilley) writes:
>> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
>> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
>> ...
>> 3) People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.
>
> I have a file of quotes, one of which has to do with this
> problem Xerox seems to have. I've heard great things about
> Dandelion/Interlisp, and their Smalltalk environments, but have
> never seen one of these machines in "real life" (whatever that
...
Smalltalk is now (finally!) available from Xerox. An organization
known as Parc Place Systems is now licensing both the virtual
image and virtual machine implementations for Suns and other
workstations. For further info contact:
Duane Bay
Parc Place Systems
3333 Coyote Hill Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94304
-bob
------------------------------
Date: 17 Sep 86 16:49:00 GMT
From: princeton!siemens!steve@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Dandelion vs Symbolics
I have received enough misinformation about Dandelions and Symbolics
machines (by net and mail) that I feel forced to reply. This is not,
however, the last word I have to say. I like to keep the net in suspense,
acting like I'm saving the BIG REVELATION for later.
Key: S= Symbolics, X = Xerox Dandelions
- point against X, for S
= point for X, against S
* misinformation against X, fact in favor (my opinion of course)
? point not classifiable in previous categories
A writer who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out:
- If your system is bigger than 32 Mb, it can't be done on a Xerox machine.
- It takes a great deal of effort to get good numerical performance on X.
- X. editor is slow on big functions & lists. My opinion is that it is
bad programming style to have such large functions. However, sometimes
the application dictates and so this is a point.
* "Garbage collection is much more sophisticated on Symbolics" To my
knowledge this is absolutely false. S. talks about their garbage
collection more, but X's is better. Discuss this more later if you want.
* Preference for Zmacs with magic key sequences to load or compile portions
of a file, over Dandelion. People who never learn how to use the X system
right have this opinion. more later.
* "Symbolics system extra tools better integrated" Again, to my knowledge
this is false. I know people who say no two tools of S. work together
without modification. I have had virtually no trouble with diverse X.
tools working together.
? "S. has more tools and functions available e.g. matrix pkg." On the other
hand I have heard S. described as a "kitchen sink" system full of many
slightly different versions of the same thing.
There is a general belief that the reason the X system is around 5 - 6 Mb
vs. S. around 24 is that S. includes more tools & packages.
+ When you load in most of the biggest of the tools & packages to the X
system you still are down around 6 - 7 Mb!
+ If your network is set up reasonably, then it is trivial to load whatever
packages you want. It is very nice NOT to have junk cluttering up your
system that you don't want.
? "The difference in size reflects how much space you have for CONSes, etc."
Huh? I have 20Mb available, yet I find myself actually using less than
7Mb. My world is 7Mb. If I CONS a list 3 Mb long, my world will be 10Mb.
Royt@gatech had some "interesting" observations:
+ Performance per dollar: you can get at least 5 X machines for the cost
of a single S machine. AT LEAST. Both types prefer to be on networks
with fileservers etc., which adds overhead to both.
? X abysmally slow for baby GPS etc. My guess is that whoever ported/wrote
the software didn't know how to get performance out of the X machines.
It's not too hard, but it's not always obvious either.
= Xerox is getting on the Commonlisp bandwagon only a little late. But how
"common" is Commonlisp when window packages are machine dependent?
= For every quirk you find in Interlisp (".. Lord, that lisp seems weird to
me! I mean, comments that return values??"), I can find one in Commonlisp.
(Atoms whose print names are 1.2 for example.)
+ X has nice windows, less complicated than S. No one i know has ever crashed
a X machine by messing with the windows. Opposite for S. machine.
+ structure editor on X machine, none on S.
* "Dandelions *lack* decent file manipulation..." Wrong, comment later.
? he has bad experience with the old IP/TCP package. Me too, but the new
one works great. (The X NS protocols actually are quite good but the rest
of the world doesn't speak them :-().
? "..Typically, what I do and what other people do .. is enter a function in
the lisp window, which makes it very difficult ..." Didn't you realise
you must be doing something wrong? That's not how you enter functions!
You give other examples of how you and your cohorts don't know how to
use the Xerox system right. You're too stuck on the old C & Fortran
kinds of editing and saving stuff.
* He goes on about reliability of X being the pits. Every person I have
known who learned to use the X machine caused it to crash in various
ways, but by the time (s)he had enough experience to be able to explain
what he did to someone else, the machine no longer crashed. I guess
the X machines have a "novice detector". My understanding is that
S has its problems too.
One guy had bad experience with KEE, which was developed on X. I do not
think his experience is representative. What he did say was that it kept
popping up windows he didn't want; X systems make much more use of
sophisticated window and graphic oriented tools and interfaces than S,
but it doesn't often pop up useless windows in general.
Dave@milano thinks S offers reliable hardware, reliable software, and
good service that X doesn't. WRONG! At his site, they were obviously
doing something sytematically wrong with their machines, and they didn't
get a good repairman. I can give you horror stories about Symbolics, too,
but I have some pretty reliable points:
+ At a site I know they have around 20 S. They have sophisticated users
and they do their own board swapping. Still they have 10% downtime.
+ At my site we have very roughly 20 machine-years with X. Total downtime
less than 2 machine weeks.
+ S. has such hardware problems that a) they have a "lemon" program where
you can return your machine for a new one, b) their service contracts
are OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE!
These lisp machines are very complex systems. If you don't have someone
teach you, who already knows the right ways to use the machine, then it
will take you more than 4 months to learn how to use it to the best
advantage. Hell, I've been using a Dandelion almost constantly for close
to three years and there are still subsystems that I only know superficially,
and which I know I could make better use of! If the same isn't true of
Symbolics it can only be because the environment is far less rich. It is
not difficult to learn these subsystems; the problem is there's just SO
MUCH to learn. Interlisp documentation was just re-done and it's 4.5 inches
thick! (Used to be only 2.25)
Finally, I will expound a little on why Xerox is better than Symbolics.
The Xerox file system and edit/debug cycle is far superior to an old-
fashioned standard system like Symbolics which has a character-oriented
editor like Zmacs. The hard part for many people to learn the Xerox file
system, is that first they have to forget what they know about editors and
files. A lot of people are religious about their editors, so this step
can be nearly impossible. Secondly, the documentation until the new version
was suitable primarily for people who already knew what was going on. That
hurt a lot. (It took me maybe 1.5 years before I really got control of the
file package, but I was trying to learn Lisp in the first place, and
everything else at the same time.) Now it's much much faster to learn.
The old notion of files and editors is like assembly language. Zmacs with
magic key sequences to compile regions etc. is like a modern, good assembler
with powerful macros and data structures and so forth. Xerox's file system
is like Fortran/Pascal/C. Ask the modern assembly programmer what he sees
in Fortranetc. and he'll say "nothing". It'll be hard for him to learn.
He's used to the finer grain of control over the machine that assembly gives
him and he doesn't understand how to take advantage of the higher level
features of the Fortranetc. language. Before you flame at me too much,
remember I am analogizing to a modern, powerful assembler not the trash
you used 5 years ago on your TRS-80. The xerox file package treats a file
as a database of function definitions, variable values, etc. and gives you
plenty of power to deal with them as databases. This note is long enough
and I don't know what else to say so I'll drop this topic somewhat unfinished
(but I will NOT give lessons on how to use the Xerox file package).
A final final note: the guy down the hall from me has used S. for some
years and now has to learn X. He isn't complaining too much. I hope he'll
post his own remarks soon, but I've got to relate one story. I wanted to
show him something, and of course when I went to run it it didn't work
right. As I spent a minute or two eradicating the bug, he was impressed
by the use of display-oriented tools on the Dandelion. He said, "Symbolics
can't even come close."
Steven J. Clark, Siemens RTL
{ihnp4!princeton or topaz}!siemens!steve
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
