what we have to lose , we can try it
--
______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 15:05, Mohamed Aslan wrote:
> what we have to lose
Nothing important:
- Productivity
- Reliability
- Portability
- and maybe even speed (writing tons of efficient asm code is hard).
> we can try it
It's a free world. Go ahead.
-- robin
It is getting really tough to distinguish sarcasm from real comments on this
thread :)
(if there is such a thing as "real comments" to a proposal like this)
--
Paulo Marques - http://www.grupopie.com
"In a world without walls and fences who needs windows and gates?"
Aaron Smith <[email protected]> writes:
> Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
>>Guys, gals,
>>
>>you are all missing the point.
>>
>>It is obvious that what we really need is a hand-optimized in-kernel
>>core LISP machine written in >i386 assembly, then we need to port the
>>rest of the kernel to run as LISP bytecode on top of that in ring1 (in
>>particular the security policies).
>>
>>Of course, important privileged user-space such as glibc should be
>>ported to this highly efficient non-recursive LISP machine too for
>>efficiency and run on ring 2 for speed and security.
>>
>>
> What you are talking about is a LISP machine micro-kernel in Ring0
> which sort of defeats the whole point of Linux being monolithic
> kernel. Also couldn't we just run HURD, or for that matter EMACS ;-),
Yes, I use Emacs as my operating system. It uses Linux as a device
driver.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
Will you please use a more modern programming language such as Autocoder
or maybe COBOL.
There have already been several operating systems written in Assembly.
They are also rather large in terms of LOC.
Cheers,
Dave
PS:Sorry I couldn't resist ;) , late night little sleep :( , plenty of
beer:).
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 07:03:41PM -0400, David B. Stevens wrote:
> Will you please use a more modern programming language such as Autocoder
> or maybe COBOL.
>
> There have already been several operating systems written in Assembly.
>
> They are also rather large in terms of LOC.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> PS:Sorry I couldn't resist ;) , late night little sleep :( , plenty of
> beer:).
I suggest n*Funge.
Regards: David Weinehall
--
/) David Weinehall <[email protected]> /) Northern lights wander (\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/
No I Could Create Assembly Code Faster Than Gcc
Gcc 2.95 was good but 3 isn't as 2,it's not my words linus recommended compiling kernel with 2.95
don't forget something assemblying requires less time than compiling
--
______________________________________________
Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
Powered by Outblaze
Have you ever written a complete program in assembler? I don't mean a
small utility, I mean a full application. If you started today
transcribing the kernel sources for 2.6.x, by the time you finished (not
including debugging) the standard would no doubt be kernel 4.x or
beyond. Your assembler version would be vastly outdated, lack features,
and the methodology would be far behind what will be common at that
time. - Just my opinion -
Mohamed Aslan wrote:
> No I Could Create Assembly Code Faster Than Gcc
> Gcc 2.95 was good but 3 isn't as 2,it's not my words linus recommended compiling kernel with 2.95
> don't forget something assemblying requires less time than compiling
=====
Billy
"There's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad...
And there it goes..." --Bobby
Mohamed Aslan wrote:
> No I Could Create Assembly Code Faster Than Gcc
> Gcc 2.95 was good but 3 isn't as 2,it's not my words linus recommended compiling kernel with 2.95
> don't forget something assemblying requires less time than compiling
Well then do it and show us.
Cheers,
Dave
PS:The elitist said that about FORTRAN as well and were _WRONG_