5 ms·

Interesting that none of those systems are in active usage... > Eventually all mainstream OS will have such type of languages and C will be legacy. That's jus

by Arelius 14y ago

Interesting that none of those systems are in active usage... > Eventually all mainstream OS will have such type of languages and C will be legacy. That's just speculation. Personally I have high hopes for languages with optional-only GC, and much stricter memory management principals. Ala, Rust.

pjmlp 14y ago
Windows and Mac OS X are, and they are slowly incorporating such changes, as I mentioned. Don't forget that UNIX was once upon a time a research operating system, and took a few decades to have industry impact. New ideas take time to mature.
- calloc 14y ago
  Objective-C isn't used in XNU the kernel that Mac OS X uses, Mach is a mixture of C and C++ (A subset of it actually, known as IOKit).
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    System programming is more than just the kernel. I imagine that the kernel can easily compiled with the Objective-C or Objective-C++ compiler, if Apple so wishes.
    - kelnos 14y ago
      You "imagine" incorrectly. A functioning Obj-C requirement requires a runtime. Currently that runtime (libobjc) is written in C, and it requires a C library to function. Yes, you can rewrite those portions to use only functions available in kernel-land, but it is by no means "easy" as you suggest.
      - pjmlp 14y ago
        This just goes to show you don't understand compilers. All languages require runtimes, even C. The thing is that C as high level assembler it is, uses the operating system as its runtime. The C language is also part of Objective-C, in a similar vein as C++ also supports most of the C89 features with small exceptions. So it is possible to have the Objective-C runtime compiled using the C subset of Objective-C. This is known as compiler bootstrapping.
        Arelius 14y ago
        C hardly requires it's runtime. Objective-C without the runtime is just C, if you write the runtime, GC, and other low-level system components in the C subset of Objective-C you are just writing the kernel in C.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        Technically you will be using the Objective-C compiler, so it is still Objective-C even if the syntax looks like C. The same applies if you would be using the C subset of a C++ compiler.
        Arelius 14y ago
        This is in the original context of how all systems will be written in "GC enabled system programming languages". If the language is not GC enabled due to missing a runtime or w/e then the technicality isn't relevant.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        What is relevant, is that universities and some companies seem to have another opinion. I am old enough to remember the days when UNIX and C were funny research projects. Look at them now. So I leave you with a list of research projects for the boring days, when you don't have anything to read. http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/ http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/ http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/archives/systemsarchive/native_new http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/archives/systemsarchive/native_new http://www.ocp.inf.ethz.ch/wiki/Documentation/Front http://www.ocp.inf.ethz.ch/wiki/Documentation/Front http://www.jnode.org/ http://www.jnode.org/ http://www.jnode.org/node/175 http://www.jnode.org/node/175 http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/ http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/ http://hasp.cs.pdx.edu/ http://hasp.cs.pdx.edu/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/ http://cosmos.codeplex.com/ http://cosmos.codeplex.com/ http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/ http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/ http://wiki.xomb.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://wiki.xomb.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
jff 14y ago
> Interesting that none of those systems are in active usage... That's a ridiculous dismissal to make; we live in a world where hand-written assembly is considered a badge of honor, where people prefer to patch up a 40-year-old dinosaur rather than make something new, where people to go ridiculous lengths to avoid using a mouse simply because Unix didn't have mouse support in 1973. Is it any wonder that we're not using anything better?
- Arelius 14y ago
  > we live in a world where hand-written assembly is considered a badge of honor Even in video games where this held true for longer, this is generally no longer the case. > where people prefer to patch up a 40-year-old dinosaur rather than make something new Also not true, Generally engineers prefer to make new things, The problem is that, creating new products from scratch to replace old ones ends up almost always being more effort than expected. Failure, is what causes patching the dinosaur the better approach, rather then engineering desires, Netscape is a classic example. > where people to go ridiculous lengths to avoid using a mouse simply because Unix didn't have mouse support in 1973 I don't know what world you live in, because in the world I live in, computers with mice are much more popular than the alternative. The fact that none of these systems are in usage is true, you can make excuses for them, but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of smart people trying, and very little success. There is little evidence to support that this is a superior approach.

by Arelius 14y ago

pjmlp 14y ago

Windows and Mac OS X are, and they are slowly incorporating such changes, as I mentioned. Don't forget that UNIX was once upon a time a research operating system, and took a few decades to have industry impact. New ideas take time to mature.

calloc 14y ago
Objective-C isn't used in XNU the kernel that Mac OS X uses, Mach is a mixture of C and C++ (A subset of it actually, known as IOKit).
- pjmlp 14y ago
  System programming is more than just the kernel. I imagine that the kernel can easily compiled with the Objective-C or Objective-C++ compiler, if Apple so wishes.
  - kelnos 14y ago
    You "imagine" incorrectly. A functioning Obj-C requirement requires a runtime. Currently that runtime (libobjc) is written in C, and it requires a C library to function. Yes, you can rewrite those portions to use only functions available in kernel-land, but it is by no means "easy" as you suggest.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      This just goes to show you don't understand compilers. All languages require runtimes, even C. The thing is that C as high level assembler it is, uses the operating system as its runtime. The C language is also part of Objective-C, in a similar vein as C++ also supports most of the C89 features with small exceptions. So it is possible to have the Objective-C runtime compiled using the C subset of Objective-C. This is known as compiler bootstrapping.
      - Arelius 14y ago
        C hardly requires it's runtime. Objective-C without the runtime is just C, if you write the runtime, GC, and other low-level system components in the C subset of Objective-C you are just writing the kernel in C.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        Technically you will be using the Objective-C compiler, so it is still Objective-C even if the syntax looks like C. The same applies if you would be using the C subset of a C++ compiler.
        Arelius 14y ago
        This is in the original context of how all systems will be written in "GC enabled system programming languages". If the language is not GC enabled due to missing a runtime or w/e then the technicality isn't relevant.
        pjmlp 14y ago
        What is relevant, is that universities and some companies seem to have another opinion. I am old enough to remember the days when UNIX and C were funny research projects. Look at them now. So I leave you with a list of research projects for the boring days, when you don't have anything to read. http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/ http://www-spin.cs.washington.edu/ http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/archives/systemsarchive/native_new http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/archives/systemsarchive/native_new http://www.ocp.inf.ethz.ch/wiki/Documentation/Front http://www.ocp.inf.ethz.ch/wiki/Documentation/Front http://www.jnode.org/ http://www.jnode.org/ http://www.jnode.org/node/175 http://www.jnode.org/node/175 http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/ http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/ http://hasp.cs.pdx.edu/ http://hasp.cs.pdx.edu/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/ http://cosmos.codeplex.com/ http://cosmos.codeplex.com/ http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/ http://www4.cs.fau.de/Projects/JX/ http://wiki.xomb.org/index.php?title=Main_Page http://wiki.xomb.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

jff 14y ago

> Interesting that none of those systems are in active usage... That's a ridiculous dismissal to make; we live in a world where hand-written assembly is considered a badge of honor, where people prefer to patch up a 40-year-old dinosaur rather than make something new, where people to go ridiculous lengths to avoid using a mouse simply because Unix didn't have mouse support in 1973. Is it any wonder that we're not using anything better?

Arelius 14y ago
> we live in a world where hand-written assembly is considered a badge of honor Even in video games where this held true for longer, this is generally no longer the case. > where people prefer to patch up a 40-year-old dinosaur rather than make something new Also not true, Generally engineers prefer to make new things, The problem is that, creating new products from scratch to replace old ones ends up almost always being more effort than expected. Failure, is what causes patching the dinosaur the better approach, rather then engineering desires, Netscape is a classic example. > where people to go ridiculous lengths to avoid using a mouse simply because Unix didn't have mouse support in 1973 I don't know what world you live in, because in the world I live in, computers with mice are much more popular than the alternative. The fact that none of these systems are in usage is true, you can make excuses for them, but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of smart people trying, and very little success. There is little evidence to support that this is a superior approach.