> I think it's a great idea actually. Build a small kernel with very few responsibilities so it's easier to prove safety, then construct the whole of userland o

> I think it's a great idea actually. Build a small kernel with very few responsibilities so it's easier to prove safety, then construct the whole of userland on-top of a known type-safe language (Haskell or OCaml) and you get a potent platform! While I like constructing a userland using a safe language over a small safe microkernel, I am annoyed by the hype this is getting because it's not new. Thinks like QNX, Symbian, GNU Hurd are based on this very concept. The only difference nowadays is the renewed interest in safer languages, which I suppose is only enabled thanks to Moore's Law giving us the headroom. It's also like everyone forgot the flamewars (Torvalds-Tanenbaum anyone?) about how microkernels were inherently slower. I'm sure that demon is going to reemerge soon enough, and we'll be back mucking around in C/C++ for performance. Just like 20 years ago. Those who don't learn from history...