Re: AuroraUX Combines SunOS with Ada

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

The idea of building an Ada OS by an "incremental" approach is an old school 
design that take too long and most of the developers will lose their focus over 
time or simply move to other projects. While the newer developers prefer to go
a different way with an OS. Aka a true Ada OS will never be written using an
"incremental" approach.

Why 100% Ada. A 100% Ada could prove the strengths of Ada and its 
weaknesses. Then the weaknesses could be fixed in the next specs. But 
without 100% Ada some of those weaknesses will be passed to the next 
specification and beyond. And that something that no Ada developer wants.

And for those who say that existing OS are good enought.  Each OS installation 
may be config differently, so each installation may boost some different Ada 
constructs while destorying others. Some of the projects that have been 
created by "Dmitry Kazakov" have demostated there is a need for an OS that 
boost the entire Ada constructs. Which in turn will shows its weaknesses so, 
the language of Ada can become the true powerhouse that Ada was design to be.

Also, as for "XPCOM, GLib, NSObject".  Those are old school! Should never be 
used in an Ada OS unless you want to cripple or destroy the OS. Only newer 
designed that comply with the Ada RM.  A lot of C project are created, 
violates the Ada RM, which gives one reason they should be no mix language
support in this OS.





In <_Edul.115295$2h5.72090@newsfe11.iad>, Paul Zacharzewski <gg@mail.oszi.org> writes:
>An interesting project.
>A "from the ground-up" approach has merit.
>I like the idea of an "incremental" approach.
>Sort of a "tin-woodsman" like approach.
>
>Chop off the bits and pieces of the OS, replace them with Ada.
>Until in the end only the kernel remains.
>
>Then you rewrite the kernel, or end up with a Hurd.