Re: Ada OS based on Minix3

[Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>]

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.

> 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?

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.  I am not sure if this is
done best using "full OO" or not.

Personally I appreciate standards compliance, so I would probably
include a POSIX API on the feature list.

> 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? :-)

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"Genes don't matter. It's all physics."