Re: Ada Microkernel?

["McDoobie" <someone@nospam.net>]

In article <8DKS6.27593$%_1.4657414@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Chris
Campbell" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> A micro-kernel would be awsome, if it's done right.
> 
> 
>> The way I would proceed is to lay out all the main functions and tasks
>> of the  kernel in Ada95 OOP code,
> 
> That depends.  If Ada tagged types need something like C++ RTTI then
> this might prevent you from taking the OO approach.  I also don't
> undertand how an OOP would be better -- it's not that i'm against OOP in
> anyway cos' I'm not -- I just can't see the benefits.  Why do you think
> OOP would be better?
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Campbell formally chris.danx -- people where actually calling me
> that so I changed the display name.

Most people assume that OOP code is slow, which happens to be thier main
objection to using for system level stuff such as kernels and drivers and
such.(Which is the position I'm assuming your coming from. I could be
mistaken.)

OOP code itself is not inherently slow, but rather it happens to be a
result of the compiler or interpreter being used. Also the language used
in the implementation can cause problems
(such as trying to use Java or God forbid Visual Basic.) when creating
something such as a Kernel or a device driver.(At least that's been my
experience.)

Using Ada95 in an OOP fashion seems to complement the MicroKernel concept
nicely. Heck, if done right, one could compile new code into a running
kernel without messing  with installing a totally new kernel at all. 
Using Ada95 OOP would have the major benefit of people being able to
actually maintain the code. They could focus on thier section of the code
without having to worry too much  about what other sections of the code
are doing.

Blah. I'm still researching the subject. A more coherent explanation will
be forthcoming.

McDoobie chris@dont.spam.me