Is there a "Why"?

[Pomax]

The README.md does not seem to cover why this was made... any interesting blog post it can link to, or excerpt of whatever caused you to start making this?

[seletz]

The answer is right there -- look at the issue number.

Sorry, couldn't resist 🎃

[Pomax]

I love how often people get that one wrong: it absolutely isn't =D

That's only the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything. If it was the answer to this question, it wouldn't have taken a planet sized computer running millions of years to find the question.

And if that wasn't good enough, to quote Ford and Zaphod themselves:

Ford: Why? Zaphod: No, I tried that: Why? 42. Doesn't work.

[moredhel]

I think this is my favourite github issue to date.

On 26 Aug 2016, at 17:07, Mike Kamermans wrote:

I love how often people get that one wrong: it absolutely isn't =D

That's only the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything. If it was the answer to this question, it wouldn't have taken a planet sized computer running millions of years to find the question. Besides, to quote Ford and Zaphod:

Ford: Why? Zaphod: No, I tried that: Why? 42. Doesn't work.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano/issues/42#issuecomment-242777987

[simulacra10]

I have found my people. :)

[stacksmith]

IMHO, by the time someone does a search for something like "bare metal lisp", they have some idea why...

[defunkydrummer]

Most of the first part of this paper, by Robert Strandh, explains quite clearly "why" a machine running lisp to the bare metal is a good option. It is a very well written, interesting paper.

http://metamodular.com/lispos.pdf

TL;DR: 42

[azzamsa]

@defunkydrummer I often visit his blog. But why I dont find that awesome pdf. thanks lot :)

[eekee]

I just found that paper while searching for Mezzano, I don't agree it's well written at all. It's got some good points, but it's a shallow whine-fest which offers junk as "better", (MULTICS interrupt handling; read it carefully,) lies about the reason processes exist, and, if I'm not mistaken, wants the return of dll hell. The author is obviously a Vogon. ("They don't think, they just... run things." -- Ford Prefect) It's not all bad, it's just shallow.

[stacksmith]

Aargh. I will try to be constructive. Unless you really think the world would be a better place without this project (and that you are a good judge of what projects should exist), why not just avoid making negative comments? Perhaps Robert Strandh is a Vogon (although this is hardly a place to discuss this).
People who do things usually have reasons, no matter how shallow you opine they are. Why do anything? Suffice it to say because it has not been done before. Or if it has, it can be done better. Or just for fun. Although generally those asking such questions are only setting up a soapbox to show off their 'critical thinking' skills.

[Pomax]

There was no need for this, @eekee. The issue, despite the lightheartedness, was a question from me, to @froggey, asking whether there is was a rationale for the work they did. The pdf that was linked to is a decent resource for people who wanted to know "one of possible why's" (rather than froggey's personal reasons), but that's about as off-topic as you should take an issue: if you want to use someone else's issue as a platform for talking about yourself, then please remember to at least do that where the resource you have opinions on lives. Not here.

[Hexstream]

... "froggery"? Twice??

[stacksmith]

Pomox - apologies - misdirected frustration at @eekee.

[eekee]

I'm sorry too. I was in a very bad mood last night when I found Robert Strandh's paper. (I was trying to distract myself with cool operating systems.) Its arguments are similar enough to my own that I got worried people would associate the paper with my project, see its flaws, and write it off. That isn't a rational fear for several reasons: I'm not sure I even want popularity, people who would write it off like that probably aren't good to have around an experimental project, and I was planning on writing up my own reasoning anyway.

TL;DR: That was dumb of me. I'm sorry for the irritating noise.

[Pomax]

@Hexstream we all have "autowriting" words in our fingers. I can't write "serve" without turning it into "server", I can't write "froggey" without turning it into "froggery". There are better ways to call out a typo than using three question marks.

[Hexstream]

Such as???

[drawkula]

Lapsus linguae?