[hnlmorg]

> One might just write a main loop, which takes Lisp expressions (or other input) from two or more different terminals and executes each expression interleaved.

Pre-time sharing systems weren't multi-terminal. Hence why I keep coming back to time sharing.

Also your main loop example could be done in assembly, FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal and C, two of which also pre-date LISP. There's nothing uniquely LISP about writing a polling loop.

Job control et al and multi-terminal mainframes are something very much born out of time sharing. You could use LISP to write your application that would run atop of that time sharing system if you wanted but you could also write that same application in a bunch of other languages too (assuming you had a compiler for that machine). And bare in mind around this time you could still physically inspect the state of paused program on a fair amount of single process systems (and those you couldn't would often punch out verbose log of its running state to tape).

> An early (mid 60s) application domain

By the mid 60s you had time sharing systems. Your argument was that LISP was doing this before then.

> That you 'know some "LISPians" like to think everything in computing eventually leads back to LISP but that's not always the case' doesn't invalidate the fact that Lisp systems were running on many of the early computers & operating systems from 1960 onwards and followed their evolution. Thus at least some interesting stuff has been done very early in Lisp, too.

I completely agree but you're attributing credit to LISP for something that isn't a language-specific feature. At least the OP was referencing a computing platform.

Anyway, this whole conversation was ridiculous from the outset and a massive distraction to the submission that sparked it. It doesn't really matter what came first; the only reason I even commented was to illustrate that we're all standing on the shoulders of giants so it's pointless mocking a submission for being similar in design to tech that pre-dates it. It's ironic that post lead to an argument about what came first.

[lispm]

> main loop example could be done in assembly

'Could' is the word. My example was that it was actually done to have built-in command loops and the building blocks for those (so that they could be used in programs), which could be invoked on demand while a program was running.

> it's pointless mocking a submission for being similar in design

I'm not mocking the submission. The feature is quite valuable and interacting with running software via command loops is great.

[hnlmorg]

> 'Could' is the word.

Ok, "was" then. Operating systems were originally written in assembly and you can't write an operating system without some kind of hardware polling and command loops (even in the days before multi-tasking systems).

Even earlier computers in the days before operating systems would have command loops written in giant rings of punched sheets that would slowly spin round on reels like a cambelt. So this isn't even an innovation that was born from assembly, let alone any high level language.

I honestly do get what you're saying and I'm not trying to dismiss your point that people did this kind of stuff in LISP but what you need to understand is that people did this in a great number of different ways, in different languages and even mechanically too.