What exactly happened with the Lisp REPL on JPL's DS-1? - read-eval-print-loop

Question

I've heard the Google talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gZK0tW8EhQ) by Ron Garret and read the paper (http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html), but I'm not understanding how it worked to "correct" supposedly running code with a REPL. Was the DS-1's Lisp code running is some sort of virtual machine? Or was it "live" in the REPL's actual world? Or was the Lisp code an executable that got replaced? What exactly happened/happens when you dynamically change running Lisp code through a REPL?

Answer 1

Whereas most programs are built and distributed as an executable that contains only the necessary components to run the program, Lisp can be distributed as an image that contains not just the components for the specific program, but also much or all of the Lisp runtime and development environment.
The REPL is the quintessential mechanism for providing interactive access to a running Lisp environment. The two key components of the REPL, Read, and Eval, expose much of the Lisp runtime system. For example, many Lisp systems today implement Eval by compiling the provided form (that is read by the Reader), compiling the form to machine code, and then executing the result. This is in contrast to interpreting the form. Some systems, especially in the past, contained both an interpreter that executes quickly and is suitable for interactive access, and a compiler that produces better code. But modern systems are fast enough that the compiler phase isn't noticeable and simply forgo the interpreter.
Of course, you can do very similar things today. A simple example is running SSH to your Linux box that's hosting PHP. Your PHP server is up and running and live, serving pages and requests. But you login through SSH, go over and fix a PHP file, and as soon as you save that file, all of your users see the new result in real time -- the system updated itself on the fly.
The fact that PHP is running on a Linux runtime vs Lisp running on a Lisp runtime, is a detail. The effect is the same. The fact that PHP isn't compiled is a detail also. For example, you can do the same thing on a Java server: modify a JSP, save it, and the JSP is converted in to a Servlet as Java source code, then compiled on the fly by the Java runtime, then loaded in to the executing container, replacing the old code.
Lisps capability to do this is very nice, and it was very interesting far back in the day. Today, it's less so, as there are different system providing similar capabilities.
Addenda:
No, Lisp is not a virtual machine, there's no need for it to be that complicated.
The key to the concept is dynamic dispatch. With dynamic dispatch there is some lookup involved before a function is invoked.
In a static language like C, locations of things are pretty much set in stone once the linker and loader have finished processing the executable in preparation to start executing.
So, in C if you have something simple like:
int add(int i) {
return i + 1;
}
void main() {
add(1);
}
After compiling and linking and loading of the program, the address of the add function will be set in stone, and thus thing referring to that function will know exactly where to find it.
So, in assembly language: (note this is a contrived assembly language)
add: pop r1 ; pop R1 from the stack, loading the i parameter
add r1, 1; Add 1 to the parameter.
push r1 ; push result of function call
rts ; return from subroutine
main: push 1 ; Push parameter to function
call add ; call function
pop r1 ; gather (and ignore) the result
So, you can see here that add is fixed in place.
In something like Lisp, function are referred to indirectly.
int add(int i) {
return i + 1;
}
int *add_ptr() = &add;
void main() {
*(add_ptr)(1);
}
In assembly you get:
add: pop r1 ; pop R1 from the stack, loading the i parameter
add r1, 1; Add 1 to the parameter.
push r1 ; push result of function call
rts ; return from subroutine
add_ptr: dw add ; put the address of the add routine in add_ptr
main: push 1 ; Push parameter to function
mov r1, add_ptr ; Put the contents of add_ptr into R1
call (r1) ; call function indirectly through R1
pop r1 ; gather (and ignore) the result
Now, you can see here that rather than calling add directly, it is called indirectly through the add_ptr. In a Lisp runtime, it has the capability of compiling new code, and when that happens, add_ptr would be overwritten to point to the newly compiled code. You can see how the code in main never has to change, it will call whatever function add_ptr is pointing to.
Since most all of the functions in Lisp are indirectly referenced through their symbols, a lot can change "behind the back" of a running system, and the system, will continue to run.
When a function is recompiled, the old function code (assuming no other references) become eligible for garbage collection, and will, typically, eventually go away.
You can also see that when the system is garbage collected, any code that is moved (such as the code for the add function) can be moved by the runtime, and it's new location updated in the add_ptr so the system will continue operating even after code and been relocated by the garbage collector.
So, the key to it all, is to have your functions invoked through some lookup mechanism. Having this gives you a lot of flexibility.
Note, you can also do this is a running C system, for example. You can put code in a dynamic library, load the library, execute the code, and if you want you can build a new dynamic library, close the old one, open the new one, and invoke the new code -- all in a "running" system. The dynamic library interface provides the lookup mechanism that isolates the code.