Inventing the Future, One Lisp Machine at a Time | Between People & Machine
Sign in
Tech<br>AI<br>Entertainment
Sign in
Welcome!Log into your account
your username<br>your password<br>Forgot your password?
Password recovery
Recover your password
your email
Search
InsightAIBetween People & Machine
More
InsightAIBetween People & Machine
More
InsightAIBetween People & Machine
Tech
Inventing the Future, One Lisp Machine at a Time
Revolutionizing Last-Mile Delivery: Bobby Healy and Manna Drone Delivery
AI
Entertainment
More
SEARCH...
Tech<br>AI<br>Entertainment
Facebook<br>Instagram
HomeTechInventing the Future, One Lisp Machine at a Time
Tech
Larry Masinter and Frank Halasz on Xerox PARC, Interlisp, NoteCards, and why “residential programming” still matters<br>On the March 10, 2025 episode ofDo You Speak Tech?, I sat down with two names woven into the early fabric of modern computing:Larry Masinter andFrank Halasz . Their careers span the era when Xerox PARC wasn’t just a research lab … it was a kind of technological weather system, generating ideas that would later condense into today’s interfaces, networks, and web culture.<br>Masinter is widely known for his role in establishing standards for the World Wide Web. Halasz is a key figure in hypertext history, best known as one of the principal developers ofNoteCards , an early hypertext system built at PARC. Together, they’ve also been central voices in theMedley/Interlisp revival , an effort to preserve (and make usable again) one of the most influential programming environments ever created.<br>What follows is an edited, article-style story drawn from that conversation: a tour through PARC’s “golden age,” the philosophy behind Interlisp, the cost of being “too far ahead,” and why the past might still contain tools for the future.<br>“Utter freedom”… with one condition: it had to be good<br>Ask people what made PARC legendary and you’ll often get the same answer:culture . But culture is vague until you hear how it operated day to day.<br>Frank Halasz doesn’t hesitate: working at PARC felt like“utter freedom.”You arrived in the morning and worked on what you believed mattered. Projects were often self-directed, shaped by curiosity, and refined through constant peer interaction. The lab’s density of talent meant help (and strong opinions) came whether you asked for it or not.<br>Larry Masinter frames it slightly differently: yes, there was freedom, but it came with accountability. No one told you what to do, but each year you had to explain what you’d done, andit better be good. The twist?No one really defined what “good” was.That ambiguity could be stressful, but it also protected exploration.<br>In the interview, Masinter draws a line that still feels relevant today: the difference betweenresearch andengineering isn’t so much what you do, but how success is judged. If a product fails to work, engineering failed. If a research prototype fails but you understandwhy, research may have succeeded. PARC lived in that experimental zone … sometimes building systems that ran, sometimes building theories, often doing both at once.<br>Supporting a living system, not just prototyping an idea<br>One reason Interlisp evolved so differently from many research projects is that it wasn’t born as a “prototype-first” experiment. Masinter describes a group that began bysupporting and extending a running system used by other teams, something closer to infrastructure than a lab demo.<br>That mattered, because it meant Interlisp wasn’t only an idea: it was a lived environment. It had users. It had workflows. It had expectations. It was tested not just by evaluation papers, but by daily dependence.<br>Over time, it “morphed” into a more conventional research effort, but it never stopped being practical. That hybrid identity (part research platform, part production environment) helped form what both guests repeatedly circle back to: a philosophy of programming that feels strangely modern again.<br>Did they know they were shaping the future?<br>With inventions like Ethernet, laser printing, and windowed interfaces tied to PARC’s story, I asked the question everyone asks:did it feel historic while it was happening?<br>Masinter points to a quote attributed to Alan Kay:the best way to predict the future is to invent it.There was a sense they were running ahead and that the hardware itself was a time machine. Researchers were using machines far too expensive for ordinary office work, effectively “buying access” to capabilities the mass market wouldn’t see for years.<br>Halasz adds a useful nuance: by the time he arrived, PARC’s reputation was already established so much that his first year overlaps with the famousSteve Jobs visit , when Jobs saw PARC demos and pushed his own team toward similar ideas. But inside PARC, that external awe could fade into routine. You didn’t walk around thinking you were changing history; you were building what you needed, because it seemed like the right next step.<br>And...