Re: Hugs for MacOS X
At The University of Western Australia, we use Hugs 98 on Macintoshes to teach Foundations of Computer Science to approximately 300 first-year students (http://undergraduate.cs.uwa.edu.au/courses/230.123). Currently we use Hugs 98 on MacOS 8.6. We're likely to change to MacOS X for 2003, and we're likely to continue using Hugs 98 on that platform.
We are considering applying to the Apple University Development Fund for support to build an integrated development environment for MacOS X based on the (already-ported) Hugs engine. We're not thinking of a huge project: probably initially we will build something roughly like the MacGofer environment (those were the days!), with an integrated editor, command-line editing, colour-coded syntax a la the Haskell-mode in emacs, etc. With the size (and general naivety) of the class, the initial emphasis will be on reliability.
My questions are:
1. Would this be of interest to other groups who use Hugs on Macintoshes? (Statements of interest may increase our chances of success with AUDF.)
I think this would be of interest to a large portion of the Mac users. The download figures for Hugs-Dec2001 show that a majority of Hugs users on the Mac has switched to MacOS X already.
2. Is anyone working on this sort of environment already?
To my knowledge - no.
3. Does anyone know any reason that this sort of endeavour might be harder than we expect?
Nope, especially not if the application is set up to launch the standard Hugs distribution as a subprocess. I really hope you'll be able to find funding for this project! Good luck, Johan
At 8:35 am +0200 2/7/2002, Johan Nordlander wrote:
We are considering applying to the Apple University Development Fund for support to build an integrated development environment for MacOS X based on the (already-ported) Hugs engine. ...
I think this would be of interest to a large portion of the Mac users. The download figures for Hugs-Dec2001 show that a majority of Hugs users on the Mac has switched to MacOS X already.
I might be being dense here, but - where could I get these download figures? They might be good ammunition for our application. -- Dr. Lyndon While -------- Email - lyndon@cs.uwa.edu.au ,-_|\ Phone - +61 8 9380 2720 / \ Fax - +61 8 9380 1089 *_,-._/ Web - http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~lyndon v
On Tuesday, 2002-07-02, 09:01, CEST, Lyndon While wrote:
[...] I might be being dense here, but - where could I get these download figures? They might be good ammunition for our application.
Is it actually allowed to use access statistics for statistics about software usage? At least in Germany, we have a data protection act which AFAIK allows the use of access statistics only for service maintenance.
Dr. Lyndon While
Wolfgang
At 15:01 +0800 2002/07/02, Lyndon While wrote:
The download figures for Hugs-Dec2001 show that a majority of Hugs users on the Mac has switched to MacOS X already.
I might be being dense here, but - where could I get these download figures? They might be good ammunition for our application.
This is a good question, because I recall that the version that Pablo Azero and I made never was at the Hugs official site. Johan Nordlander made his own MacOS pre-X version which does not have the many feature our version has, which is probably what his figures refer to. :-) I think though there is no point for a MacOS developers to spend any time on MacOS pre-X, not only is that OS essentially defunct, developing on that platform is extremely time consuming. And from the point of view of computer science, it is not very interesting, basically an exercise in low mem programming where the programming is doing the GC by hand. Hans Aberg
"Lyndon While"
At 8:35 am +0200 2/7/2002, Johan Nordlander wrote:
We are considering applying to the Apple University Development Fund for support to build an integrated development environment for MacOS X based on the (already-ported) Hugs engine. ...
I think this would be of interest to a large portion of the Mac users. The download figures for Hugs-Dec2001 show that a majority of Hugs users on the Mac has switched to MacOS X already.
I might be being dense here, but - where could I get these download figures? They might be good ammunition for our application.
They're not publically available, but for the Dec 2001 release, there's been 290 downloads of the OS X installer vs 149 for the other MacOS distribution. (that's an approximation & doesn't take into account chunked downloads.) The Windows downloads numbers are going on 11,000 ..sorry, couldn't resist :) --sigbjorn
"Sigbjorn Finne"
They're not publically available, but for the Dec 2001 release, there's been 290 downloads of the OS X installer vs 149 for the other MacOS distribution. (that's an approximation & doesn't take into account chunked downloads.)
The Windows downloads numbers are going on 11,000 ..sorry, couldn't resist :)
How about for Linux? Jens
The Windows downloads numbers are going on 11,000 ..sorry, couldn't resist :)
How about for Linux?
I don't know the numbers but I suspect they'll be misleading - I think most Linux users get their copy of Hugs from one of the big Linux distributions (Redhat, Debian, SuSE, etc.) In a way this is unfortunate since, last time I looked, the Debian distribution was woefully out of date (i.e., september 2001 instead of December 2001). (Personally, I'd like the unstable Debian package to be updated every 3 months - but just having it match the last official release would be a big help.) -- Alastair Reid alastair@reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk Reid Consulting (UK) Limited http://www.reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk/alastair/
On 20020709T134551+0100, Alastair Reid wrote:
In a way this is unfortunate since, last time I looked, the Debian distribution was woefully out of date (i.e., september 2001 instead of December 2001). (Personally, I'd like the unstable Debian package to be updated every 3 months - but just having it match the last official release would be a big help.)
As a former Debian maintainer for Hugs, I'd like that too. I'm ccing the current maintainer; wli, what's the story? The last note from you is that you'll upload a new version in 24 hours, and that was in March. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc) * http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * gaia@iki.fi
On 20020709T134551+0100, Alastair Reid wrote:
In a way this is unfortunate since, last time I looked, the Debian distribution was woefully out of date (i.e., september 2001 instead of December 2001). (Personally, I'd like the unstable Debian package to be updated every 3 months - but just having it match the last official release would be a big help.)
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:50:24PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
As a former Debian maintainer for Hugs, I'd like that too. I'm ccing the current maintainer; wli, what's the story? The last note from you is that you'll upload a new version in 24 hours, and that was in March.
For some reason it didn't go through... Cheers, Bill
On 20020709T134551+0100, Alastair Reid wrote:
In a way this is unfortunate since, last time I looked, the Debian distribution was woefully out of date (i.e., september 2001 instead of December 2001). (Personally, I'd like the unstable Debian package to be updated every 3 months - but just having it match the last official release would be a big help.)
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 07:50:24PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
As a former Debian maintainer for Hugs, I'd like that too. I'm ccing the current maintainer; wli, what's the story? The last note from you is that you'll upload a new version in 24 hours, and that was in March.
duploaded. Sorry, I kept getting interrupted before. Cheers, Bill
participants (9)
-
Alastair Reid -
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho -
Hans Aberg -
Jens Petersen -
Johan Nordlander -
Lyndon While -
Sigbjorn Finne -
William Lee Irwin III -
Wolfgang Jeltsch