perm filename MILLER.TO[P,JRA]3 blob
sn#559237 filedate 1981-01-26 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00007 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 well mark, it's another 4am session. i am tired and grumped in general, so
C00012 00003
C00014 00004 auww shit, mark!!!!
C00025 00005 ∂04-Jan-81 1033 Mark L. Miller <MMILLER at BBNA> Re: holy shit!!!!
C00029 00006 * I think the misunderstanding has to do with
C00033 00007 ∂26-Jan-81 0504 MMILLER at BBNA what's up
C00037 ENDMK
C⊗;
well mark, it's another 4am session. i am tired and grumped in general, so
you get a dump of what's "grumping" me about this deal. this is meant for
your reading only (probably too "raw" for truman, and not for anyone else)
... so go away all you mail hackers...
basically, the solution is so tightly constrained that's there's no
solution. of course that's my opinion; feel free to get another. as i see
it gene's criteria are:
1 a production quality lisp
2. portable to 10, LM, and others
3. defined by dec 31
4. cost significantly less than 400k
let D be the magic lisp
3. says D must be an existing lisp; quick definitions are absurd,
particularly in theface of 1. in fact the general task of defining a
production quality lisp is a long slow process in general; particularly if
one is to attract outsiders like maclipers and/or interlispers --that's
one thing that bothered me about the proposal i drafted last may-june, and
one thing that apppealed to me about my october proposal.
existing lisps that fit 1 are maclisp and interlisp dialects. period.
standard lisp and vlisp are interesting and are possible bases for the
proposal that is mess derived, but are NOT suitable as stated (standard
lisp is portable but not production quality; similar to vlisp. in fact the
inadequacy of vlisp led me to tlc-lisp --- and tlc-lisp as it is currently
defined is notsuitable either)
superficially 1,2,3 imply that D is LM lisp, but how do you separate LM
lisp from LM? a. there's all the display stuff that makes LM LISP so nice,
and there's the 12-16K od micro code that violates the MACRO level
portable machine. (btw, all this is spelled out very politely in a paper
-- you get the "no bullshit" variety this am) and what do you port to the
10?
so what about NIL? well portability is not well defined yet. besides, as i
mentioned in the may-june proposal, i feel NIL is too baroque. in fact,
that's the whole problem with this set on constraints: they imply that
lisp technology is a nicely canned and packaaged collection of bnf
equations and documents that tells the truth. LISP IS A MESS, and my
efforts at tlc are (converging to "were") aimed specifically at finessing
the mess and establishing a decent standard without going through the
pointless bullshit meetings that the lisp standards people seem to be
attempting; unfortunately, such ventures take money, time, and people;
unfortunately, i don't have any of the above, and response this year makes
me have considerable doubts where or not another year of $5000 gross
income is worth it.... anyway, if NIL is to be a D, then buy a piece of
mit (everyone else is)
the cleanest work so far is interlisp at parc, but it suffers from as many
hacks and historical warts as the rest of them. however, given the current
constraints, it really does look like a better basis than the conpetitors.
in particular, it is maintained by collection of people whose state of
equilibrium appears somewhat more stable than the competition. (please,
sir what is lisp machine lisp today? ans: "on which machine" -- i told you
i was in a evil mode/mood) of course, then there's the cost constraint:
even transfering interlisp to the vax is estimated to take at best two
years, and maybe four (with one year down already). and that's using the
most portable of the extant lisp's (fitting 1-3). that's damn expensive.
what's to happen? well, perhaps the lisp people will sit around pissing
and moaning at each other, protecting their private dialectcal dung hills,
while the pascal people rally around the S&M standard ADA and the creative
ones ignore LISP and take to the well defined and soon ubiquitious
smalltalk. of course, the lisp people can look up occasionally and say
"... but we did that in lisp in 1960", while the five little smalltalk-80
piggies go "hee-hee-hee" all the way to the bank.
i think a lot of the probelm stems from trying to retrofit history, rather
than start over... consider scheme, for example. as an analogy, when a car
manufacturer wants a new model, they don't go get last year's models and
hack, patch, and modify to make the new issue (even chrysler doesn't do
that); they start over, saving those segments of the design that were
deemed useful and chuck the rest. unfortunately to constraints for the
magically lisp don't allow this.
what's to do with weaker constraints? first, it is presumptious folly to
assume we can spawn fully grown a "production lisp"; that must be done by
experimentation and takes time; that was the basis of my october proposal
and we all know where that led.
so the "fall back" position is to bandage a portable production system out
of the current rubble. i opt for attempting a subset i call VML that will
support an interesting part of interlisp and maclisp, and given this VML,
define a VM that is portble. of course the trick is to find a useful VML
(if one exists) --that's part of the lisp standards swamp. i may attend
that meeting if i can afford it.
...enough of this. i must get back to the proposal; i will ship you a
polite version of all this later today. be warned; it is expensive and is
predicated on the presumption that appropriate people are available now
and not "growable".
unfortunately, i feel the best course for all concerned --you, me and
lisp-- was what i proposed in october. however, considering the general
reaction to my ideas (ti is not alone) i have serious doubts about
fighting this battle at all. sorry to be in such a shitty mood, but looking
at the financial, educational and technical future does not lead to optimism.
john
∂03-Jan-81 0026 Mark L. Miller <MMILLER at BBNA> Re: where are you!!
Date: 3 Jan 1981 0318-EST
From: Mark L. Miller <MMILLER at BBNA>
Subject: Re: where are you!!
To: JRA at SU-AI
In-Reply-To: Your message of 1-Jan-81 1747-EST
John,
I've just been swamped, sorry for the delay.
Basically, we want LISP Machine Lisp, not INTERLISP.
Willing to consider that? TI is somewhat random about $
right now, and the numbers in your proposal were a bit
frightening to Kromer at the high end (though not unreasonable
in my estimate, for doing a good job on a LISP), so that may
be a problem. Still in all, the chances of funding are good.
I'll be in touch. Regards, Mark
-------
auww shit, mark!!!!
* John,
* I've just been swamped, sorry for the delay.
* Basically, we want LISP Machine Lisp, not INTERLISP.
* Willing to consider that?
sigh. as you may recall, i was the one that said "the lisp must be lisp machine
lisp" after Kromer "defined the problem". at that time it seemed the only way to
solve the time and sociological constaints; i never considered interlisp at all
in that decision. it was only after considering the money problems, and examining
the state of the development in the maclisp camp that i, in great desperation,
came to interlisp. iId suggest that you re-read the long harrangue i sent you
in november just before i sent the draft. the ti constraints were described there:
1 a production quality lisp
2. portable to 10, LM, and others
3. defined by dec 31
4. cost significantly less than 400k
at that time (4am of randome nov morning) i felt there was NO solution, and it
pissed me off (a lot!). it was only while summarizing the situation that it occurred
to me that the ONLY lisp that fit the description was interlisp. the amount of work
to put lisp machine lisp (what ever it is --remember that, mark?) in a state of
portability similar to that of interlisp would be as substantial as that invested
in doing the same to interlisp. that's a damn lot on time and money. the "kernel"
of lisp machine is a tangled-web, now known only to the lmi/symbolics bodies.
perhaps you should talk to them instead of me.
as i said when i came to ti last april and october, i believed the way to go
was to develop a ti/industry defacto standard, based on lisp machine lisp
(tlc-extensions). "production" lisps are a god damned fucking mess; they are
full in historical hacks,.... we've been through this before, sigh.
* TI is somewhat random about $
* right now,
oh crap mark! i heard you say that the money was in the budget for doing ti-lisp.
is ti going soft on lisp and ai now?
* and the numbers in your proposal were a bit
* frightening to Kromer at the high end
damn! what i sent you was a DRAFT; for discussion between you and me and truman.
it was NOT ready for any kind of management decisions. btw there were not
ANY numbers in the draft AT ALL. any interpretation of the time scales is
total conjecture on your part, based on TI's view of overhead and salaries.
in fact, i would suspect that you (gene) made a completely incorrect interpretation
of the info in the draft (DRAFT, mark, DRAFT!) for example, here's the exact
"budget section":
\C\F2Budget\F1
\;three technical people plus one business type: two years
five staff members
LISP machine
lots of dec 10 time
\.
if you give this passage the interpretation that there are 9 people then gene
has reason to be upset; it you had asked i would tell you that the personnel is
four or five: three technical plus one or two to keep the shit off of the other
three's head. if ti thinks three people is too mnay to
build a first-rate portable lisp system, then we have some
very serious communications problems here. furthermore,
tlc is supposed to be a business, not just
a one-contract hit-and-ruun contrct house, and businesses are supposed to be
run in a professional fashion. you need hackers for hacking and you need business
and financial types to keep the company together. having hackers handle business
and finance is a loss, mark; ask me. the proposed numbers were for my benefit
alone to get a feel for the complexity of the operation so that the ti effort
would not turn into a poorly managed, unprofessional operation.
as i said above, tlc is not supposed to be a one-contract operation;
your (ti's) interpretation that all of the personnel and salaries are
to be covered by this contract alone is very unfortunate and totally unwarranted.
i am really upset about the distribution of this document. it was clearly not
completed, and therefore not ready for distribution. i sent it early so that
we would have a chance to discuss it and converge on a solution before
sending/presenting it. the magic jan 1 deadline i thought was solid, and therefore
expected that convergence could be done more quickly through the net/phones after
you had a draft. i would appreciate it if you would explain the situation to kromer;
i don't like doing business this way; at all.
* (though not unreasonable
* in my estimate, for doing a good job on a LISP), so that may
* be a problem.
what ARE your're numbers anyway, mark? what is a portable lisp machine lisp
that will give you a free hunting license on ai, worth to you. surely it
must be worth as much as your BASIC. what did that cost, please sir??
* Still in all, the chances of funding are good.
doesn't sound hopeful to me, mark. after all it IS after jan 1 and ti was supposed
to have ti-lisp defined by that time. if deadlines aren't real, and budgeted money
isn't there (it sounds like alice in wonderland to me), then how about reconsidering
my april/october proposal? (****AND FOR CHRISSAKE, MARK, DON'T DISCUSS THIS WITH
GENE KROMER YET!!!!!!!!!) namely a graduated development of professional lisp
based on the lisp machine family? it can be done without the educational aspects
if necessary, but damn it, ti has to do something soon.
* I'll be in touch. Regards, Mark
-------
well, as you can guess, i'm not pleased. i'd suggest that you re-read my november
harrangue--let truman read it, and probably anyone else that read the proposal,
telling them the relationship between the two.
btw, i didn't go to the lisp standards meeting: no money. money is a very pressing
problem unfortunately. i hope we can come to an understanding about this
ti business soon, i cannot afford to spend much more time worrying about an effort
that does not appear to be converging.
is ti REALLY serious about lisp and/or ai? personally, i have serious doubts.
well, enough of this! i have three papers to get together for my lisp/object-
oriented session at west coast computer faire by thurs., a curriculum
to write for the santa clara art of computing course, a curriculum
to write for next summer's santa cruz cs institute, a curriculum to write for
a humanities-sociial science faculty seminar on computing at santa clara, an
ai class to begin teaching next week, find $50K for equipment for these courses,
and find some money to make a house payment. .. and none of the above projects does
any more than put me further in debt. of course is does great things to "popularize
lisp", but that doesn't pay bills. so i'd appreciate some straight answers
and some straight suggestions about what ti wants and where it's going.
regrets
john
∂04-Jan-81 1033 Mark L. Miller <MMILLER at BBNA> Re: holy shit!!!!
Date: 4 Jan 1981 1324-EST
From: Mark L. Miller <MMILLER at BBNA>
Subject: Re: holy shit!!!!
To: JRA at SU-AI
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Jan-81 1056-EST
John,
You misunderstood an important point. Kromer has NOT seen your document.
He asked me what you thought it would take -- in manpower -- to do a good
job. I told him that you had NOT pinned it down yet but that it surely
looked like a minimum of 3 man-years to do anything decent. He extrapolated
from there. He had his budget cut 5 times in the last two months. This
has nothing to do with "commitment to AI" -- it has to do with serious
softness in the semiconductor business. (TI is hurting BADLY.)
Meanwhile, I agree that TI has screwed around long enough. Frankly,
Truman and I are thinking of splitting and forming our own firm. (PLEASE
take that as highly confidential.) However, I'll surely still be involved in
TI's LISP decision somehow (either as head of the group, if I stay, or as
a key consultant, if I leave). I think the misunderstanding has to do with
your summary of TI's constraints. Relax the time constraint at least. Take
longer if it results in a better LISP. Now, does LISPM LISP look better?
What about TLC LISP as the goal (how close is that to INTER versus LISPM?)?
Anyway, please be assured that the document has NOT been read by Kromer or
anyone in management. Three or four key technical people that I trust and
that work very closely with me are the only ones who have seen it so far.
They advise me on technical issues with regard to implementing LISP, and have
absolutely no say so on manageerial or $ matters. When they read it, they
were given controlled, NUMBERED copies and ordered to not discuss it with
anyone but me.
Feel better? I'd like to get back to a footing where you and I are good
friends that trust each other! Let's work together to get TI to do the
right thing. If we can't let's both flush TI, but let's not flush each other!
Regards, Mark
-------
* I think the misunderstanding has to do with
*→→ your summary of TI's constraints. Relax the time constraint at least. Take
* longer if it results in a better LISP. Now, does LISPM LISP look better?
* What about TLC LISP as the goal (how close is that to INTER versus LISPM?)?
I'm sorry, mark, i HEARD gene kromer specify steps 1-4 below:
1 a production quality lisp
2. portable to 10, LM, and others
3. defined by dec 31
4. cost significantly less than 400k
if those constraints aren't valid, which ones are? and i mean SPECIFICS;
not "the best lisp for ti" kind of bullshit. i'd appreciate it if you'd
get gene's current reaction about 1-4.
i get very irritated when i consider the amount of time i've spent
(mostly for free), trying to satisfy an ill-specified set of conditions.
i was quite upset about the last october meeting; it appeared that my plan
was known to be dead before i got there, and furthermore, it appeared that gene
hadn't heard anything about it until that meeting. is this true?
mark, you and truman have to realize that i have no other source of income
but my committment to tlc. my total earnings this year are essentially zero.
right now i don't even have money enough for the house payment. i have
a lot of time doing "missionary work" for lisp and am seeing little
to even sustain that effort. i am committed to teach several more of these
"faith courses", including the supplying of machines for the programming
lab. and i don't have the money. as time gets shorter, so does my temper.
i have zero time, mark, even to get the non-paying committments completed.
it's a vicious circle, much like the lisp conference operation: then, if i'd
had funds, i could have hired ANYONE to help with the grunt of licking
stamps and running errands, and .... but funds were not forthcomming and
by myself we got a B- conference.
It's similar now in that without funds, i'm rushing to get the freebie
stuff completed and don't have time to even support myself.
with support, and therefore personnel,these projects would all be manageable.
so i have no sympathy for bullshit efforts that just soak up more time.
i will call you today at ti and home; this has to be resolved IMMEDIATELY.
∂26-Jan-81 0504 MMILLER at BBNA what's up
Date: Monday, 26 January 1981 08:00-EST
From: MMILLER at BBNA
To: JRA at SU-AI
Cc: MMiller at bbna
Subject: what's up
Mail-from: BBNC
Received-Date: 22-Jan-81 1631-EST
Date: 22 Jan 1981 0939-PST
From: John Allen <JRA at SU-AI>
Subject: what's up
To: mmiller at BBNC
anything interesting to report, mark?
will try to reach you this weekend.
john
I broached the subject with Kromer and Heilmeier at that luncheon, and
all hope is not lost, by any means. However, they have sent me off to do
another round of "justifying" the contract (cost versus benefit etc.),
which I regard as a typical management delaying tactic, probably while they
see what funds can be scared up. Will call. Regards, Mark
--------------------------------------------
luncheon: broached subject with kromer and heilmeier
gee, is that like the diet plate?
there's a group in santa monica that's doing interlisp for the lisp
machine, it looks like an lmi sub. watch out for a woman from
"international search" calling around for lisp people; she's really
off-the-wall.
as to the ti-lisp thing, well, someone should tell heilmeier to shit or
get off the pop! i'll volunteer.
i've got the undergrad class this spring, the faculty workshop, the cs
institute both this summer, the west coast computer faire this spring,
hopefully a high school teacher workshop this summer, and HOPEFULLY two
entry level computing classes --one eecs, the other human, arts, and sci.
required by everyone, going down next fall. all these depend on machines
and my ability to generate code and texts. i need people, machines, and
MONEY. if there's is ANYONE at TI that can help with this, please let me
know. please, please, please.
how will this impact on the ti-lisp project? depends on how long you take
and how much money/people i can get. sure i'm over committed, but that's
the only way to get things done. i certainly won't accept a contract
unless i can fulfill it. the real problem is people; with places like
santa monica buying bodies, it makes it harder for me immediately. in the
long range, this education-stuff will pay off; of course by then intel,
may have bought out ti.
john