Text File

Aucbvax.5232 fa.works utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!works Tue Nov 17 22:33:22 1981 WorkS Digest V1 #38 >From JSol@RUTGERS Tue Nov 17 22:26:42 1981 WorkS Digest Wednesday, 18 Nov 1981 Volume 1 : Issue 38

Today's Topics: Exxon's Answer To The Star Programming Environments - Operating System Vs. User Interface ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 November 1981 17:25-EST From: Steven T. Kirsch <SK MIT-MC AT> Subject: Exxon

Xonex [which is Exxon spelled sideways] is the Exxon company that is building Exxon's answer to Star; it has a full bitmap and other nice features that I am not allowed to disclose. However, the system is very special case (i.e., like Wang) and concepts such as "extensibility and customizability" seem to be foreign to the people there. The software is impressive, but last I saw, they were still coding in a macro assember.

------------------------------

Date: 17 November 1981 17:41-EST From: Stavros M. Macrakis <MACRAK MIT-MC AT> Subject: WorkS Digest V1 #35: Programming environments To: BillW at SRI-KL

A programming environment supports development of programs. Examples are Harvard PDS, CMU Gandalf, PWB/Unix (shell and utilities).

An operating system supports running of programs and storage of data (including, presumably, the programs which implement the programming environment). Examples are Tops-20, Unix.

A programming system supports cooperation of running programs. In most places, this consists of a set of conventions. In Unix, for instance, it consists of conventions on the use of pipes and the passage of textual parameters. Examples are the conventions of Multics, Tops-10 (CCL files!).

A general user interface (there appears to be no standard name for this and moreover it is often incorporated into the OS itself) supports user control of the running of programs. Examples are Tops-20 Exec, Unix Shell, DDT/Hactrn. Note that the Tops-10 "monitor" is both an operating system and an interface.

The above classification is not to imply that the distinctions are always sharp, nor that the best organization separates the levels. Some very successful systems (Lisp Machine, for instance) blur many of the lines; more and more other lines, such as those between programming language, system, and environment, are similarly blurred. There is a large literature on the first two topics. The third and fourth topics are less discussed in themselves, although instances are sometimes reported in the literature.

In all of these areas, there are debates about the right way to do things. Some typical dimensions of dispute are the degree to which a PE "understands" what it is working on (in PWB/Unix, not at all: it is just a string of characters to most tools; while in Gandalf and PDS it is structured and cannot be dealt with as a string of characters); the degree of integration of parts of the system (again, in Unix almost none--the toolbox approach; in PDS, very great); the amount of structure in interfaces in PS's (in Unix, arguments are just strings which may be interpreted as desired; in Multics, they are PL/I objects); ... etc. etc. ad infinitum.

In any case, there is an extensive literature especially on programming environments. See Horst Huenke's (some libraries may transcribe u umlaut as 'u', giving Hunke) recent collection for a starting point.

Stavros Macrakis

------------------------------

End of WorkS Digest ******************* -------

----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/

This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.