From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ee887b7593f7961b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Ada OS based on Minix3 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1pmkcuemqczer.j2i34pvc2lne$.dlg@40tude.net> <87hc6fzxmt.fsf@nbi.dk> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:51:56 +0100 Message-ID: <17cxqpmk64t2f$.18ynm7n1xu7io$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Nov 2008 11:51:57 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 29f68a96.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=VfZj;6M;HEMI7\_^6>c20JA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbIdCc[TJoBeNLDNcfSJ;bb[EFCTGGVUmh?DLK[5LiR>kgB3 On 10 Nov 2008 11:24:58 +0100, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> It makes no sense to make yet another linux. > > In a way, I agree. But at the same time, I like to have the freedom > to choose among several different, free/Open Source, POSIX compliant > operating systems. Freedom of choice assumes diversity. There is not much diversity in what is called "modern" OSes. In recent time worked mainly with Windows, Linux, VxWorks (before that I did with Sys V, VMS, Solaris). I just don't consider them conceptually different. IMO it makes no sense to have another one like these. >> In my opinion an Ada OS, if there should be one, must be fully OO >> and have native Ada interface. > > Why should it necessarily be object oriented? Because otherwise OS is damned to have a very low-level interface. The sad consequence of this are poorly integrated OS-like additional storeys with a huge overhead due to interface impedance. DBMS is one notorious example. Others are numerous middlewares like CORBA etc. This architecture has no future, IMO. > I think the important part in writing an operating system is to figure > out how you can do it "better". If we want to write an operating > system in Ada, we should consider how we can make a "better" operating > system using that. It seems that "better" in this case is > reliability, maintenance and efficiency. Yes, but note, you were talking about *non-functional* requirements, here. It is placing a cart before the horse. > I am not sure if this is > done best using "full OO" or not. OO is not a tool here, it is a goal, a *functional* requirement. Others are to have it embeddable, heterogeneous, distributed, with persistent objects. > Personally I appreciate standards compliance, so I would probably > include a POSIX API on the feature list. POSIX is on the top of the list ... of thing to scrap ... >> In order to achieve this, much has to be done at the language level >> first. > > In the sense that the language should be changed? (Would it still be > Ada then? :-) Sure. Ada means "designed to support the construction of long-lived, highly reliable software systems" ARM 1/1. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de