Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows

["Ekkehard Morgenstern" <ekkehard.morgenstern@onlinehome.de>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> > Windows NT 4.0 is an anachronism.
> 
> It is more stable than 2k/XP, thank to absence of plug'n'pray, I suppose.

No, it's because NT is smaller and hence less bug-prone.

If you update Windows 2000 or XP regularly using the Windows Update function,
and make sure you have good drivers (for example by getting them from
Microsoft if possible, or the latest from the device manufacturer), they are
no less stable than NT.

> Multitasking is also better under NT, at least it is more predictable. 

That's only because XP is bigger and runs more stuff after booting.
If you disable all unneeded services, and make sure you have drivers
that don't block out the task scheduler, then XP should behave just as good.

> So many of our customers keep sticking to NT. And honestly, I can hardly
> remember anything really new in OS API...

There's truckloads of new stuff in the Windows 2000 and XP system APIs.
Not only everything has improved, but also there's plenty of new stuff.
Many concepts have been adapted from the UNIX world (like job scheduling), 
but there are also new concepts, enhanced graphics, more components, and
so on.

If your customers keep sticking to NT forever, they will have to make
a major investment when upgrading to a new system someday. The current
world is already 2 generations ahead, and the third is already in the 
make (Longhorn).

Some people are still using MS-DOS or Windows 3.1, but that doesn't mean
they're better than what's current.

You can already run 64 bit applications on XP.
 
> As well as quick basic...

So what? Microsoft is ensuring compatability. You can even still run DOS
programs on XP (tho somewhat limited).
 
> There is no different way to do things I mentioned. There are only more or
> less nasty work-arounds. It is OK for 80% of applications, but for an OS,
> using work-arounds in API is the worst thing I can imagine. Nobody needs
> one more "adux" or "adows". We need a completely new OS. Scalable from
> embedded to mainframe, from real-time to time-sharing etc, and with an OO
> API. So if ADT and OO with all their bells and whistles are not supported
> by a language (and presently there is no one), it is would be a great
> mistake to make the OS API OO.

Well, arbitrary inheritance might not be what you want when creating an OS.

Also, wanting features from other languages in Ada might not be the right
solution. Ada has its own concept. We'll see what the Ada20xx committee will
decide upon.

For me, as a C++ programmer, it's also weird to get acquainted with Ada,
but I at least can admit that I like its concepts. And I don't think there's
really something missing in the language, altho new capabilities might
always be good.

All that inheritance stuff present in C++ didn't necessarily lead to better
programs. In fact, C++ programs are often unnecessarily bloated and big.
For example, in Ada I can simply use a limited type when I want to prevent
assignment to it. In C++ I have to declare a private copy constructor and
a private copy assignment, which makes no sense really, in a logical way.
And if I do want to support copying in C++, I have to write at least a 
copy constructor and a copy assignment for every class. Template classes
have nonsensical limitations, and some of the scope rules (like no goto
over initialization) are nonsensical either. To use exceptions in C++,
I have to create a real exception class, while in Ada I can simply declare it,
which greatly speeds up implementation of code supporting exceptions.
In C++, there are no built-in types for concurrent data structures and tasks,
which means you have to use a library, which is almost never portable.

Especially the concurrency aspects of Ada make it ideal as a systems 
programming and implementation language.

The whole OO stuff isn't really necessary for an OS. Abstraction (using types)
and black-boxing (information hiding) is more important than proper OO
inheritance schemes.

BTW, there was/is a fully OO OS, namely BeOS, which used C++. So perhaps you
should support the development of BeOS. I've heard there's a group continuing
its development after Be Inc. abandoned it.

> > If you take your time to
> > understand them, you can use them effectively as well.
> > 
> > I bet the Ada 20xx standard that is in the works will add even more
> > interesting stuff to the language.
> 
> I bet it will not change the situation. The time of a big cut is yet to
> come.

Well, let's see. People interested in reliable software will always be
supporting such languages as Ada.