Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: LISP Interpreter ???
Message-ID: <100@obie.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 88 15:50:24 GMT
References: <17499@watmath.waterloo.edu> <500@nunki.usc.edu> <86@obie.UUCP> <588@nunki.usc.edu>
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 28
Summary: Good languages sans windows?  Hah!

In article <588@nunki.usc.edu>, rjung@castor.usc.edu (Robert Jung) writes:
> Heck, the only *really*good* languages I've seen for ANY computer all
> don't use windows...

Ah.  I take it you've never seen a good Smalltalk system.  Or Modula-2
on a Lilith.  Or even C/C++ on a Sun.  If you've never experienced
window systems on a workstation with enough screen real estate to be
useful, you haven't really experienced windows.  I have a mono monitor
on my ancient 520ST at home, and on my Mega 2 at work; the color loses
too many pixels to interest me.

	Wes Peters

P.S.  I don't know if you've ever been involved in a large-scale s/w
development project, but picture this:  a s/w engineering system,
using windowed micros for terminals and a VAX/VMS or unix mini/micro
server to hold the on-line text for the requirements doc, the design
doc, and the source.

You're editing your source code, and you want to take a look at the
requirement this section of code is derived from.  You click on a
little "handle" in the code window, and another window opens showing
you the requirement that drives this section.  A third window shows
the design doc section describing this code.  Whaddya think?
-- 
    /\              -  "Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -       Schiller        -     obie!wes