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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9ad7:: with SMTP id x23mr9058538ion.21.1547466365241;
        Mon, 14 Jan 2019 03:46:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cc0f:: with SMTP id c15mr118133oig.3.1547465164709;
 Mon, 14 Jan 2019 03:26:04 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.215.MISMATCH!k10no16421itk.0!news-out.google.com!v71ni44ita.0!nntp.google.com!q69no16711itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 03:26:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4s8rud$9j3@tribune>#1/1>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=134.206.121.213;
 posting-account=O_NgcgoAAABs6pgCjroQBmOBL5ZZGPUc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.206.121.213
References: <4s8rud$9j3@tribune>#1/1>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6ee2838d-4b6a-4b8e-9583-fc1ce4f3a1bd@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why couldn't an operating system be written in ada
From: George Shapovalov <gshapovalov@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 11:46:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:55273
Date: 2019-01-14T03:26:04-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Well, gnat is built on top of gcc, so you have implicit Ada integration wit=
h the gcc toolchain and even Posix bindings to assist is some tasks. So, st=
rictly speaking, nothing stops someone from starting to replace Linux/BSD k=
ernel internals one module at a time :) (you would have, of course, to oper=
ate within the no-RTL limitation). Having maintained gnat in Gentoo Linux I=
 can attest to feasibility of at least small tweaks and general compatibili=
ty..=20
Of course you would have to prove the merit of such replacement to the larg=
er community, presenting extra stability/maintainability or utility suffici=
ent to overcome the resistance to the unknown new thing.

Also, @Pascal Martin mentions some very nice points about tasking and heap =
management. Unix has a different tasking model, so direct substitution is n=
ot an option, but I suppose a superset and bindings could be provided. This=
 and all others are, however, tedious and time consuming tasks. Especially =
the community handling aspect. But at least this way you have some "point o=
f entry". Creating a complete new and not tied to established standards OS =
may be possible (even if resource hungry). But making people actually use i=
t (to any significant extent, rather than playing with it for all of 1hr, e=
ven when provided for free) would be much more complicated..