Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
AIList Digest Volume 4 Issue 190
AIList Digest Saturday, 20 Sep 1986 Volume 4 : Issue 190
Today's Topics:
AI Tools - Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Sep 86 14:27:00 GMT
From: princeton!siemens!steve@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
I have been "brought up" on Interlisp and had virtually no exposure to
Maclisp derivatives, but more to the point, I've been brought up on the
Xerox Dandelion lisp machine and never used a Symbolics. Every chance I
get, I try to find out what a Symbolics/Zetalisp machine has that the
Dandelion doesn't. So far I have found only the following:
1) More powerful machine (but less power per dollar).
2) The standard of Commonlisp (only the past couple years).
3) People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer.
4) Edit/debug cycle (and editor) very similar to old standard systems
such as Unix/C/Emacs or TOPS/Pascal/Emacs, and therefore easier
for beginners with previous experience.
I have found a large number of what seem to be advantages of the Xerox
Dandelion Interlisp system over the Symbolics. I won't post anything
now because this already is too much like an ad for Xerox, but you might
get me to post some separately.
I am not personally affiliated with Xerox (although other parts of my
company are). I am posting this because I am genuinely curious to find
out what I am missing, if anything.
By the way, the Interlisp system on the Dandelion is about 5 megabytes
(it varies depending on how much extra stuff you load in - I've never
seen the system get as large as 6 Mb). I hear that Zetalisp is 24 Mb.
Is that true? What is in it, that takes so much space?
Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.
{ihnp4!princeton | topaz}!siemens!steve
something like this ought to work from ARPANET: steve@siemens@spice.cs.cmu
(i.e. some machines at CMU know siemens).
------------------------------
Date: 5 Sep 86 16:38:57 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Sellers)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics? [vs. Tek 4400 series]
> Why do people choose Symbolics/ZetaLisp/CommonLisp over
> Xerox Dandelion/Interlisp?
Maybe I'm getting in over my head (and this is not unbiased), but what
about Tek's 4400 series (I think they have CommonLisp & Franz Lisp, but
I could be wrong)? I was under the impression that they offered much
more bang for the buck than did the other major AI workstation folks.
Have you seen these and decided they are not what you want, or are you
unaware of their capabilities/cost?
> ...Dandelion Interlisp system over the Symbolics. I won't post anything
> now because this already is too much like an ad for Xerox, but you might
> get me to post some separately.
Maybe, if we're going to have testimonials, we could nudge someone from
Tek's 4400 group (I know some of them are on the net) into giving us a
rundown on their capabilities.
> I am not personally affiliated with Xerox (although other parts of my
> company are). I am posting this because I am genuinely curious to find
> out what I am missing, if anything.
I am personally affiliated with Tek (in a paycheck sort of relationship),
though not with the group that makes the 4400 series of AI machines. I did
have one on my desk for a while, though (sigh), and was impressed. I think
you're missing a fair amount :-).
> Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.
Mike Sellers
UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes
INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL
IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
------------------------------
Date: 5 Sep 86 17:27:54 GMT
From: gatech!royt@seismo.css.gov (Roy M Turner)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
In article <25800003@siemens.UUCP> steve@siemens.UUCP writes:
>
>Every chance I
>get, I try to find out what a Symbolics/Zetalisp machine has that the
>Dandelion doesn't. So far I have found only the following:
>...
>Steven J. Clark, Siemens Research and Technology Laboratory etc.
>{ihnp4!princeton | topaz}!siemens!steve
>
As a user of Symbolics Lisp machines, I will try to answer some of Steve's
comments. We have had Symbolics machines here since before I started on my
degree two years ago; we recently were given thirteen Dandelions and two
DandyTigers by Xerox. We use the Symbolics as our research machines, and the
Xerox machines for teaching AI.
The Symbolics are more powerful, as Steve says, and quite possibly he is right
about the power per dollar being less for them than for Xerox; since the Xerox
machines were free to us, certainly he's right in our case! :-) However, I
find the Dandelions abysmally slow for even small Lisp programs, on the order
of the ones we use in teaching (GPS (baby version), micro versions of SAM,
ELI, etc.). To contemplate using them for the very large programs that we
develop as our research would be absurd--in my opinion, of course.
The "standard" of CommonLisp will (so Xerox tells us) be available for the
Dandelions soon...'course, they've been saying that for some time now :-). So
the two machines may potentially be equal on that basis. ZetaLisp is quite
close to CommonLisp (since it was one of the dialects Common Lisp is based
on), and also close to other major dialects of lisp--Maclisp, etc.--enough so
that I've never had any trouble switching between it and other lisps...with
one exception--you guessed it, Interlisp-D. I realize that whatever you are
used to colors your thinking, but Lord, that lisp seems weird to me! I mean,
comments that return values?? Gimme a break!
"People are ignorant of what the Dandelion has to offer." I agree. I'm one
of the people. It has nice windows, much less complicated than Symbolics.
MasterScope is nice, too. So is the structure editor, but that is not too
much of a problem to write on any other lisp machine, and is somewhat
confusing to learn (at least, that's the attitude I perceive in the students).
What the Dandelions *lack*, however, is any decent file manipulation
facilities (perhaps Common Lisp will fix this), a nice way of handling
processes, a communications package that works (IP-TCP, at least the copy we
received, will trash the hard disk when our UNIX machines write to the
DandyTigers...the only thing that works even marginally well is when we send
files from the Symbolics! Also, the translation portion of the communication
package leaves extraneous line-feeds, etc., lying about in the received file),
and A DECENT EDITOR! Which brings us to the next point made by Steve:
>4) Edit/debug cycle (and editor) very similar to old standard systems
> such as Unix/C/Emacs or TOPS/Pascal/Emacs, and therefore easier
> for beginners with previous experience.
This is true. However, it is also easier for experts and semi-experts (like
me) who may or may not have had prior experience with EMACS. The Dandelions
offer a structure editor (and Tedit for text, but that doesn't count) and
that's it...if you want to edit something, you do it function by function.
Typically, what I do and what other people do on the Xerox machines is enter a
function in the lisp window, which makes it very difficult to keep track of
what you are doing in the function, and makes it mandatory that you enter
one function at a time. Also, the function is immediately evaluated (the
defineq is, that is) and becomes part of your environment. Heaven help you if
you didn't really mean to do it! At least with ZMACS you can look over a file
before evaluating it. Another gripe. Many of our programs used property
lists, laboriously entered via the lisp interactor. We do a makefile, and
voila--next time we load the file, the properties aren't there! This has yet
to happen when something is put in an edit buffer and saved to disk on the
Symbolics. Perhaps there is a way of editing on the Xerox machines that lends
itself to editing files (and multiple files at once), so that large programs
can be entered, edited, and documented (Interlisp-D comments are rather bad
for actually documenting code) easily...if so, I haven't found it.
Another point in Symbolics favor: reliability. Granted, it sometimes isn't
that great for Symbolics, either, but we have had numerous, *numerous*
software and hardware failures on the Dandelions. It's so bad that we have to
make sure the students save their functions to disk often, and have even had
to teach them how to copy sysouts and handle dead machines, since the machines
lock up from time to time with no apparent cause. And the students must be
cautioned not to save their stuff only to one place, but to save it to the
file server, a floppy, and anywhere else they can, since floppies are trashed
quite often. Dribble to the hard disk, forget to turn dribble off, there goes
the hard disk... Type (logout t) on the Dandelions to cause it not to save
your world, and there goes the Dandelion (it works on the DandyTigers).
About worlds and sysouts. The Symbolics has a 24-30 meg world, something like
that. This is *not* just lisp--it is your virtual memory, just as it is in a
Xerox Sysout. The difference in size reflects the amount of space you have at
your disposal when creating conses, not the relative sizes of system software
(though I imagine ZetaLisp is larger than Interlisp-D). You do not
necessarily save a world each time you logout from a Symbolics; you do on a
Dandelion...thus the next user who reboots a Symbolics gets a clean lisp,
whereas the next user of a Dandelion gets what was there before unless he
first copies another sysout and boots off of it. It is, however, much harder
to save a world on the Symbolics than on the Xerox machines.
Well, I suppose I have sounded like a salesman for Symbolics. I do not mean
to imply that Symbolics machines are without faults, nor do I mean to say that
Xerox machines are without merit! We are quite grateful for the gift of the
Xerox machines; they are useful for teaching. I just tried to present the
opinions of one Symbolics-jaded lisp machine user.
Back to the Symbolics machine now...I suppose that the DandyTiger beside it
will bite me! :-)
Roy
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 86 22:36:43 GMT
From: jade!violet.berkeley.edu!mkent@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
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, other than in
regard to issues of transfer and learnability. I spent about 4 days using
the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
of the stone age. But I realize this has more to do with *my* background
then with Zetalisp itself.
Is there anyone out there with *non-trivial* experience with *both*
environments who can shed some light on the subject?
Marty Kent
"You must perfect the Napoleon before they finish Beef Wellington! The
future of Europe hangs in the balance..."
------------------------------
Date: 9 Sep 86 06:14:00 GMT
From: uiucdcsp!hogge@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
>...I spent about 4 days using
>the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
>of the stone age. But I realize this has more to do with *my* background
>then with Zetalisp itself.
Four days *might* be enough time to get familiarize yourself with the help
mechanisms, if that's specifically what you were concentrating on doing.
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
help mechanisms for first-time users, check out what the TI Explorer adds to
the traditional Zetalisp environment. LMI and Sperry also provide their own
versions of the environment.
--John
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 86 10:35:40 GMT
From: mob@MEDIA-LAB.MIT.EDU (Mario O. Bourgoin)
Subject: Re: Xerox Dandelion vs. Symbolics?
In article <3500016@uiucdcsp>, hogge@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
> >...I spent about 4 days using
> >the Symbolics, and my initial reaction was that the user interface was out
> >of the stone age.....
>
> 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? The Symbolics's
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.
If you're arguing internals, I haven't worked with the Dandelion so I
can't provide an opinion on it. The CADR's user interface software was
certainly featureful and appeared to my eyes to come from a different
school than what I later saw of Xerox's software. 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
------------------------------
Date: 10 Sep 86 15:23:29 GMT
From: milano!Dave@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: 36xx vs. Xerox
A few to add to pro-36xx list:
5. Reliable hardware
6. Reliable software
7. Good service
A year ago, I was on project which used
Dandeanimals. As a group, they were up about 60% of the time, and
there were days when all 5 were down. The extra screw was that
the first level of repair was a photocopier repairman. It always
took several days before we got people who knew something about the
machines.
Dave Bridgeland -- MCC Software Technology (Standard Disclaimer)
ARPA: dave@mcc.arpa
UUCP: ut-sally!im4u!milano!daveb
"Things we can be proud of as Americans:
* Greatest number of citizens who have actually boarded a UFO
* Many newspapers feature "JUMBLE"
* Hourly motel rates
* Vast majority of Elvis movies made here
* Didn't just give up right away during World War II
like some countries we could mention
* Goatees & Van Dykes thought to be worn only by weenies
* Our well-behaved golf professionals
* Fabulous babes coast to coast"
------------------------------
End of AIList Digest
********************
