scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: fork vs. spawn

To: scsh@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: fork vs. spawn
From: Sean Doran <smd@chops.icp.net>
Date: 13 Aug 1996 17:15:46 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

shivers@ai.mit.edu (Olin Shivers) writes:

> Richard Kelsey had a very aggressive variant of this, where
> you put *all* OS functionality in a little bitty process, and your big
> Scheme process indirects all syscalls over to it. So fork is fast. I thought
> this was cute

In a really sick and twisted way, it is.   

However, inventing a guest operating system to be run
under UNIX and other platforms just for the sake of
running scsh (which is neat because it makes UNIX more usable)
seems just a wee bit on the backwards side to me.

But then, what do I know?  I'm not a non-UNIX hacker either.

> (get scsh's size down)

How is the work on the new Scheme48 going, btw?   All
references I've found are growing old...

        Sean.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Public Key in ftp://ftp.sprintlink.net/engineer/smd/pgpkey

iQCVAwUBMhDwakSWYarrFs6xAQGkAAQAl4d9C/bjw/bcOwS3f1Axizqvps9Uez2p
lhFmYQUQbi6RUWS07izRlkLGBBXYmxGUtFpmVbiFkA2mQQRAaEGvN9+tzAXql1qV
E1OmXkUDXmJS8UE9rLk5nYyIm8fNLHZLtl/LrGbpRA3cBVgSBkNlrwa8FGa5OY81
YPhnZR0MJNE=
=D0NS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>