Re: Ada Microkernel?

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

> Hi there. Well, the Mach sources are well-commented,
> but they are C, use pointers heavily, and are just difficult
> to understand, in my opinion. It is a monumental project
> to become familiar with them, and they are very compact
> compared to something like the Linux kernel.

Pain in the butt ain't it?  One of the groups i subscribe to for OS development
(alt.os.development) has quite a lot of folk all doing C or Assembly.  The posts
with assembly are OK but those with C code can be confusing because I'm not
really that well versed in it.  Up until now it's been ok because there has been
no attempt to code the kernel but it will be difficult when problems arise and
replies come with some C in.

It's funny actually we were just having a discussion on a.o.d about why people
use C so much (the poster Rick, is as into Asm in a big way).  I mentioned that
i didn't use Ada and some of the reasons why (not that i'm nuts and would stick
with Ada 'till my dying day, if something was better suited to a task i'd use
it).  Some of the reasons people used appeared to be everyone else was so
there's lot's of other's in the same boat, Unix was written in it, it's low
level and efficient.  All but the first didn't seem good reasons but let's not
get into a debate about A vs. B.  One thing i will say is that I could see why
people would feel C was best because others used it.  There's a lot of people
with a lot of experience in OS writing in C, and this is a great benefit.  Not
enough to make me switch though, C's just not for me.

I'm on my tod on that group -- the only Ada 95 programmer there.  There is one
other with Ada 95 experience, but he's a self confessed C(++) freak, something i
can't quite understand.  Haven't seen any AdaOS members on there, how's that
going?  What's being happening Nick?



Chris Campbell