Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!orstcs!ruffwork
From: ruffwork@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU (Ritchey Ruff)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: exposing the implementation (was Re: Another Lucid Question)
Message-ID: <5947@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 8 Aug 88 14:08:22 GMT
References: <3384@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <6882@bcsaic.UUCP> <3424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2912@tekcrl.CRL.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: ruffwork@CS.ORST.EDU (Ritchey Ruff)
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Lines: 45

In article <2912@tekcrl.CRL.TEK.COM> willc@tekchips.CRL.TEK.COM (Will Clinger) writes:
>In article <3424@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes:
>>[...] I think
>>it makes sense to indicate the existence of EVERYTHING available in the lisp,
>>in EVERY package, regardless whether or not it's felt that the user has
>>the right to use these things are not. [...]
>[...]
>All things considered, it seems to me that users are much better off when
>they don't know anything about ephemeral system internals.  [...]

a flame, then lucidity ( ;-) follow.

***flame on***

*IF* a full *layered* interface were provided and fully documented
for SYSTEM: (et al, just as it is for USER: now via CLtL) then
I would have no gripes, but when you *can't* do things easily
(or at all) until you grope around in the packages to find out
how to talk to the underlying OS in a particular way, or have to
use the foreign function interface and write you own system interface
code, or call the hotline and ask then get told "your not suppose to
do that!" ; that's when I think the mentality as expressed by Will Clinger
gripes me.  "Oh, you don't *WANT* to know about those nasty
things, just tell us what the problem is and we will fix it, or
give you a workaround, or tell you how to do it right, or..."
It gives the company lots of chance to make money from supporting
products, because without a hotline to cry for help you are
in deep yogart many times...

***flame off***

sorry, but I've been hacking common lisp's with poorly documented
features (and sometimes the lack of documentation allows a company
to claim a bug as a feature---it wasn't documented to act in any
given way, so we *claim* it's working right!).  I agree with Will
that the "typical enduser" should not be privy to this level of
detail, but as a developer/researcher I *NEED* to be---if I want
to be able to do what I want to at all and have it look nice (and
give people who see it good feelings about XYZ's version of CL---
wow, look what they did using *that* version of CL).  Developers
and researchers often need MUCH more detailed info then the typical
*end user* (hmmm, anyone *EVER* ment a typical enduser???).

sorry again to flame, but you pressed my button ;-)
--ritchey ruff	ruffwork@cs.orst.edu -or- ...!tektronix!orstcs!ruffwork