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,abfa4f5da664715 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: AuroraUX Combines SunOS with Ada Reply-To: no to spamers (No@email.given.org) References: <6af3aae9-5f85-4bdc-82c2-dfad5d4deaed@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <_Edul.115295$2h5.72090@newsfe11.iad> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:35:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.65.114.221 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1236976548 12.65.114.221 (Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:35:48 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:35:48 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5090 Date: 2009-03-13T20:35:48+00:00 List-Id: 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 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.