[fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Hello, An open source pascal operating system could be cool. Would translating/porting linux to pascal be possible ? Bye, Skybuck. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
As with many things, it only depends of the time you have. But as you grow older you get a different idea of life expectancy and the use of your remaing time. Regards, Gerard. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
What is the use anyhow? 2008/12/4 Skybuck Flying [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello, An open source pascal operating system could be cool. Would translating/porting linux to pascal be possible ? Bye, Skybuck. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal -- SCALA IT | Internet- und Softwareagentur Büro Mannheim: L7, 7a | 68161 Mannheim Firmensitz: Gutenbergstr. 18 | 67112 Mutterstadt Tel: (06234) 600 57-6 Fax: (06234) 600 57-9 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobil: (0176) 206 263 04 Inhaber: Marc Geldon Steuernummer: 41/049/7267/0 (Finanzamt Speyer) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
An open source pascal operating system could be cool. There are already such projects (including mine :-)). Search google code and sourceforge. Would translating/porting linux to pascal be possible ? Yes, but who would? And if he/she would, does he/she have the time? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Porting-linux-to-pascal%2C-would-it-be-possible---tp20850611p20851474.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Would translating/porting linux to pascal be possible ? Possible? Yes it is. Worth of...? I'm afraid not. By the way, Linux is good as it is now and Pascal isn't the best option to create an operating system. Guillermo Ñuño Martínez ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
--- On Fri, 12/5/08, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, Linux is good as it is now and Pascal isn't the best option to create an operating system. Are you sure? doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. Leonardo M. Ramé http://leonardorame.blogspot.com ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
Skybuck Flying [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, An open source pascal operating system could be cool. Would translating/porting linux to pascal be possible ? Absolutely. Most of Unix is plain C, which translates well to Pascal. C++ is harder, of course. Gerard N/A [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As with many things, it only depends of the time you have. But as you grow older you get a different idea of life expectancy and the use of your remaing time. This is an argument only after considering the time versus the goal. Is the goal worth the time? An operating system based on FPC code would be one way to give FPC more (well deserved) attention, one way to make a wider range of people know that the language is not dead, but significantly updated and a stronger alternative than most people think. But it is the best way? An OS kernel is not the most visible source code that makes a lot of people gather to have a look. Showing off the technology can be done in more time-efficient ways. Another goal is to make a better OS. FPC programs use less memory and starts faster. That can be a good thing. Would it be significant? I'm not sure. You are perfectly right in that we must choose our battles and spend our time on things that are worth the time. I don't rule out that this could be one. Porting Linux doesn't have to imply that every little program is ported. /Ingemar ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
If everybody does a little bit it could go quite quickly. Question is: Which linux distro ? ;) Maybe even some BSD version so that closed-source os-es could be done as well. Though I onced tried FreeBSD... I couldn't even figure out the gui or how to start an app.. So maybe linux more user friendly... So first someone needs to find a good/user friendly linux distro which is not to large. Also for kicks maybe a floppy-disk based linux distro could be turned into pascal as well. So could even be multiple linux distro's turned into pascal... Different flavors for everybody :) Most important would be to be able to play with the to-be-pascal sources of the linux distro so people can try out things with the os... ;) So focus would be: 1. Linux distro(s)/kernel(s). 2. Linux gui(s). 3. Linux editor for editing pascal files. 4. Free pascal compiler probably already available. Then anything else can be turned into pascal later on :) Maybe even drivers and applications and such ;) Bye, Skybuck. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
Skybuck Flying schreef: If everybody does a little bit it could go quite quickly. Some (arbitrary numbers) from http://www.ohloh.net/p/linux: Codebase 10,679,927 lines Effort (est.) 3,396 Person Years So, if everybody on this list (maybe 300 persons) work on it, then it can be done in just over 11 years. Not so quickly, IMHO. Vincent ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
Hello all, Skybuck Flying schreef: If everybody does a little bit it could go quite quickly. Some (arbitrary numbers) from http://www.ohloh.net/p/linux: Codebase 10,679,927 lines Effort (est.) 3,396 Person Years So, if everybody on this list (maybe 300 persons) work on it, then it can be done in just over 11 years. Not so quickly, IMHO. Although the effort is huge, and the topic is senseless, porting is much faster then creating/coding/debugging. The numbers above do not reflect a port and are pointless. -- Best Regards, Steve Howe ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
If you want to do some large work to increase the use of FPC I would recommend creating a Window Manager instead, probably with fpgui. The work is imensely smaller, althougth still large, and a window manager usually comes with lot's of useful gui software, so this would be an opportunity to distribute all kinds of software made with fpc and lazarus. My open source project, for example, the Virtual Magnifying Glass, suffers in linux because KDE only wishes to distribute C++/Qt software and Gnome only distributes C and C# software, so it get's hard to be popular. And don't expect people from the list to join your initiative. Usually you have to start the project alone and get something working before one or two people join in. Don't expect everyone to stop what they are doing to help you in what you think is important. -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ingemar Ragnemalm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an argument only after considering the time versus the goal. Is the goal worth the time? No, and that was exactly my point. Life is too short to spend it rewriting Linux in Pascal. g Another goal is to make a better OS. FPC programs use less memory and starts faster. That can be a good thing. Would it be significant? I'm not sure. Then maybe it would better to focus on something different from Linux. You are perfectly right in that we must choose our battles and spend our time on things that are worth the time. I don't rule out that this could be one. Porting Linux doesn't have to imply that every little program is ported. Not every little program, but only for the kernel + drivers + filesystems the task is daunting. Gerard. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] EInvalidOp Excpetion
Hi all,
since fpc 2.2.3 in my Arch Linux box I'm having some troubles with an
EInvalidOp exception raised on normal math operations. I tried to
update to 2.3.1 but with the same result. I found in the bug tracker
an opened bug, about this kind of exception and I tried to use
ClearExceptions and trapping the code block in a try..except block and
this is fine but the error move on another block of my code. Trapping
this too, it moves on synapse library code so I believe there is a
problem I cannot solve. Could you guys point me to the right direction
to solve this errors ?
Thank you.
Follows a my code block:
-
procedure TFileToFtp.Update(ASubject: TtiObject);
var
TempSpeed: double;
begin
inherited Update(ASubject);
begin
FTransferBytes:= FTransferBytes +
TMultiFTP(ASubject).WrittenBytes; //total transferred bytes
FTransferPercentage := RoundTo(fTransferBytes / fSize * 100, -2);
try
TempSpeed := (TMultiFTP(ASubject).WrittenBytes/SecondSpan(Time,
fTime))/1024;
fTransferSpeed := TempSpeed;
except
//do nothing to capture division by zero
//and keep previous fTransferSpeed value ;-)
end;
fTime := Time; // == *HERE I HAVE EInvalidOp, but if I
trap this I got on the first two rows after begin statement and if I
trap all the block I have it in another code block*
writeln(FloatToStr(RoundTo(fTransferPercentage, -4)) + '%');
writeln(FloatToStr(RoundTo(fTransferSpeed, -4)) + ' Kb');
writeln('Pacchetto: ' + IntToStr(TMultiFTP(ASubject).WrittenBytes));
end;
end;
Antonio
--
Antonio Sanguigni alias slapshot
--
GioveLUG (Linux User Group) - http://www.giovelug.org
Edupup (Educational distro) - http://www.pieroni.biz/edupup
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Leonardo M. Ram? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- On Fri, 12/5/08, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, Linux is good as it is now and Pascal isn't the best option to create an operating system. Are you sure? doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? Yes, and there's nothing wrong with Pascal for an OS. It would be excellent. I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. Using C for Linux was the only way, because there was a free C compiler (GCC) and none for Pascal or other comparable languages. Things have changed since then, but much of the software industry is on a path decided from the situation 20 years ago. The industry took the C route since there was no cross-platform Pascal, while Linux made the choice from available free software. Now everything must have inherited design flaws from C just because of what was available in the 80's. That is, unless the tide changes. It can happen. Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My open source project, for example, the Virtual Magnifying Glass, suffers in linux because KDE only wishes to distribute C++/Qt software and Gnome only distributes C and C# software, so it get's hard to be popular. Now, that sounds like one real problem, related to the porting issue, which we can address. And not that doesn't need as much work. So the KDE and Gnome projects are language-locked? (How? Surely users don't select software by language? Or are the distros incomplete, FPC-wise? Hard to recompile?) Anyway. that sounds bad! And that suggests a much shorter path: Adapt a distribution to Pascal Gnome support, with full Pascal interfaces and code, or whatever is missing. Port Gnome examples, if it isn't already done, and show that Pascal (FPC) is not only an option but a *better* solution. Easier than C/C++, faster than Java, much faster than Python... I don't know if an FPC-tuned distro would make any difference, stronger FPC support in, say, Ubuntu, would make a bigger impact. Acceptance of FPC sounds like a good goal to me. Who isn't distributing? Gnome? That isn't a distribution. I don't quite understand what you mean. The FPC OS doesn't have to be 100% written in FPC, not even 10%. No hurry. The C code is ugly but it works as long as you don't take GCC out. Port what really counts, making it possible and well supported to write *new* programs in FPC. /Ingemar ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Ingemar Ragnemalm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the KDE and Gnome projects are language-locked? Yes, they are. (How? Surely users don't select software by language? Users don't care, but they usually use what comes with their distro and window manager, so if KDE comes with a bunch of software they will use it instead of looking for alternatives. Or are the distros incomplete, FPC-wise? distributions are not the same thing as window manager. Distributions are much more flexible language-wise, but they tend to package whatever comes with the window manager. It would also be possible to build a distribution instead of a window manager, but I'm usually into writing code, as opposed to setting things up, so building a distribution doesn't seam a lot of fun to me =) -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Am Freitag, den 05.12.2008, 17:40 +0100 schrieb Ingemar Ragnemalm: Now everything must have inherited design flaws from C just because of what was available in the 80's. This is one strong argument against porting Lunix to Pascal, isn't it? Porting means sort of translating old design flaws to another language. That is, unless the tide changes. It can happen. It has happened in the past. There has been OS/2 for example, with it's superior OO design. RIP. There have been many OSses with new appealing features, BEOS coming to my mind. And there have been some people starting to write an OS in pascal, but I've never heard of something coming out as ... say at least an alpha version or some sort of prototype. SCNR, Marc -- UN*X is sexy! who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; \ finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
Hello Everyone, While I can't honestly say I share any enthusiasm for writing a OS in FreePascal, I do think there is merit in looking for projects of similar scope and interest that can demonstrate the power of the language and the tremendous tools that have been developed by this group over the past four years. I do think that if someone were to interested in testing their mettle for writing something like an OS, he or she might first take a crack at writing a few of the GNU tools in FP. Say for example the BusyBox suite. Once they had done that, there are a few more code foothills they could climb to build up enough additional undestanding and programming techniques others could then learn and then join them later on more ambitious OS projects. My current projects are to port the FP compiler to the OpenSolaris platform and to eventually write an Eclipse plug-in oe a Mozilla based XUL application (like Komodo) for FP. Ultimately, I am interested in exploring more of the ARM platform support in FP. Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Gerard N/A [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Ingemar Ragnemalm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an argument only after considering the time versus the goal. Is the goal worth the time? No, and that was exactly my point. Life is too short to spend it rewriting Linux in Pascal. g Another goal is to make a better OS. FPC programs use less memory and starts faster. That can be a good thing. Would it be significant? I'm not sure. Then maybe it would better to focus on something different from Linux. You are perfectly right in that we must choose our battles and spend our time on things that are worth the time. I don't rule out that this could be one. Porting Linux doesn't have to imply that every little program is ported. Not every little program, but only for the kernel + drivers + filesystems the task is daunting. Gerard. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Are you sure? Yes, I am. doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? Yes, it does, but as I said I think it wasn't the better options. I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level. I'm not saying it's impossible: here you have MacOS and Toro. I'm just saying that _I think_ it isn't the best option. Of course a better option is to write the kernel in C and Assembler and the utilities in Pascal and Object Pascal. Guillermo Ñuño Martínez ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Hello I don't mean to start a culture war here, but I think there is a bit of overstatement in this post that 'C' is somehow a better language for writing an OS in than say Pascal or OP or anything else. In point of fact, the only 'best' language for any processor is its own machine code which is always binary. And the first operating system software written was done so in the assembly language which is written to use mnemoics that when 'assembled' convert directly into the binary machine language on a one to one basis. Now EVERY compiled language, including C, must be processed from its syntactical representation into assembly language or machine code. In fact, if you download the GCC complier source code and read it, you'll see almost immediately that it actually a 'language' front-end connected to a 'assembler machine code' back end. When the 'C' language was designed at ATT it used 'assembler' like constructs and syntax because it's author wanted to stop writing programs in a language called BCPL.. So aside from a 'historical accident' that the first ATT OS ..UNIX.. was being written at the same time C was being developed, there is no other reason for any program, including an OS, to be written in C. To suggest that C is better is rather like suggesting that Spanish is a better language than English for writing a novel. That said, if someone wished to write a modern OS in FP, which has nearly every programming construct that 'C' has (ints, doubles, floats, bytes, and bits) and you were willing to put in the time to fine tune and modify the FP compiler, you could produce a OS in FP that would be every bit as effective and perform as well or better as one written in C. And as far as the processor running the OS couldn't tell what language the OS was written in. If anyone wants to convince themselves on this its simple, you'll find Ritchie (the creator of the C language) explained these points in the preface to his first book on C. There is also a brief mention of this in the Wikipedia article on the UNIX operating system. (see the article footnotes) Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure? Yes, I am. doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? Yes, it does, but as I said I think it wasn't the better options. I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level. I'm not saying it's impossible: here you have MacOS and Toro. I'm just saying that _I think_ it isn't the best option. Of course a better option is to write the kernel in C and Assembler and the utilities in Pascal and Object Pascal. Guillermo Ñuño Martínez ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Here is a direct reference from the Wikipedia article I referenced in my prior post ... In 1973, Unix was rewritten in the C programming languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29, contrary to the general notion at the time that something as complex as an operating system, which must deal with time-critical events, had to be written exclusively in assembly language.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX#cite_note-Stallings-3The migration from assembly language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_Language to the higher-level language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language C resulted in much more portablehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_quality#Portabilitysoftware, requiring only a relatively small amount of machine-dependent code to be replaced when porting Unix to other computing platformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_%28computing%29 . Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Prince Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello I don't mean to start a culture war here, but I think there is a bit of overstatement in this post that 'C' is somehow a better language for writing an OS in than say Pascal or OP or anything else. In point of fact, the only 'best' language for any processor is its own machine code which is always binary. And the first operating system software written was done so in the assembly language which is written to use mnemoics that when 'assembled' convert directly into the binary machine language on a one to one basis. Now EVERY compiled language, including C, must be processed from its syntactical representation into assembly language or machine code. In fact, if you download the GCC complier source code and read it, you'll see almost immediately that it actually a 'language' front-end connected to a 'assembler machine code' back end. When the 'C' language was designed at ATT it used 'assembler' like constructs and syntax because it's author wanted to stop writing programs in a language called BCPL.. So aside from a 'historical accident' that the first ATT OS ..UNIX.. was being written at the same time C was being developed, there is no other reason for any program, including an OS, to be written in C. To suggest that C is better is rather like suggesting that Spanish is a better language than English for writing a novel. That said, if someone wished to write a modern OS in FP, which has nearly every programming construct that 'C' has (ints, doubles, floats, bytes, and bits) and you were willing to put in the time to fine tune and modify the FP compiler, you could produce a OS in FP that would be every bit as effective and perform as well or better as one written in C. And as far as the processor running the OS couldn't tell what language the OS was written in. If anyone wants to convince themselves on this its simple, you'll find Ritchie (the creator of the C language) explained these points in the preface to his first book on C. There is also a brief mention of this in the Wikipedia article on the UNIX operating system. (see the article footnotes) Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure? Yes, I am. doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? Yes, it does, but as I said I think it wasn't the better options. I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level. I'm not saying it's impossible: here you have MacOS and Toro. I'm just saying that _I think_ it isn't the best option. Of course a better option is to write the kernel in C and Assembler and the utilities in Pascal and Object Pascal. Guillermo Ñuño Martínez ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Link to the article about the ATT UNIX OS and C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Prince Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is a direct reference from the Wikipedia article I referenced in my prior post ... In 1973, Unix was rewritten in the C programming languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29, contrary to the general notion at the time that something as complex as an operating system, which must deal with time-critical events, had to be written exclusively in assembly language.[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX#cite_note-Stallings-3The migration from assembly language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_Language to the higher-level language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language C resulted in much more portablehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_quality#Portabilitysoftware, requiring only a relatively small amount of machine-dependent code to be replaced when porting Unix to other computing platformshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_%28computing%29 . Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Prince Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Hello I don't mean to start a culture war here, but I think there is a bit of overstatement in this post that 'C' is somehow a better language for writing an OS in than say Pascal or OP or anything else. In point of fact, the only 'best' language for any processor is its own machine code which is always binary. And the first operating system software written was done so in the assembly language which is written to use mnemoics that when 'assembled' convert directly into the binary machine language on a one to one basis. Now EVERY compiled language, including C, must be processed from its syntactical representation into assembly language or machine code. In fact, if you download the GCC complier source code and read it, you'll see almost immediately that it actually a 'language' front-end connected to a 'assembler machine code' back end. When the 'C' language was designed at ATT it used 'assembler' like constructs and syntax because it's author wanted to stop writing programs in a language called BCPL.. So aside from a 'historical accident' that the first ATT OS ..UNIX.. was being written at the same time C was being developed, there is no other reason for any program, including an OS, to be written in C. To suggest that C is better is rather like suggesting that Spanish is a better language than English for writing a novel. That said, if someone wished to write a modern OS in FP, which has nearly every programming construct that 'C' has (ints, doubles, floats, bytes, and bits) and you were willing to put in the time to fine tune and modify the FP compiler, you could produce a OS in FP that would be every bit as effective and perform as well or better as one written in C. And as far as the processor running the OS couldn't tell what language the OS was written in. If anyone wants to convince themselves on this its simple, you'll find Ritchie (the creator of the C language) explained these points in the preface to his first book on C. There is also a brief mention of this in the Wikipedia article on the UNIX operating system. (see the article footnotes) Prince On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you sure? Yes, I am. doesn't older MacOS's versions where written in Object Pascal? Yes, it does, but as I said I think it wasn't the better options. I think the problem here (again) is not the language, it's the critical mass of users of the language. Using C for Linux was a good bet, not because the language is good (Pascal is way better for me), but because C has a wider user base who can fix/add features. I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level. I'm not saying it's impossible: here you have MacOS and Toro. I'm just saying that _I think_ it isn't the best option. Of course a better option is to write the kernel in C and Assembler and the utilities in Pascal and Object Pascal. Guillermo Ñuño Martínez ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] fstat usage
Trying the fstat function and don't seem to be getting the right values for
ctime, mtime and atime.
-- filedate.pp
uses BaseUnix,DateUtils,SysUtils;
var
info : stat ;
begin
if fpstat ('myfile.txt' , info) 0 then
begin
writeln ('Fstat failed . Errno : ' , fpgeterrno) ;
halt ( 1 ) ;
end ;
writeln ;
writeln ('atime : ' , DateTimeToStr(info.st_atime ));
writeln ('mtime : ' , DateTimeToStr(info.st_mtime ));
writeln ('ctime : ' , DateTimeToStr(info.st_ctime ));
writeln ('Now STR: ', DateTimeToStr(Now));
writeln ('Mod diff:' , DaySpan(Now,info.st_mtime));
writeln ('mtime raw: ', info.st_mtime );
writeln (' Now raw: ', Now);
end .
touch mfyle.txt
fpc filedate.pp
./filedate.pp
atime : 6-9-88--
mtime : 6-9-88--
ctime : 6-9-88--
Now STR: 5-12-08 22:15:08
Mod diff: 1.22849351907281E+009
mtime raw: 1228533307
Now raw: 3.97879271865278E+004
I was expecting atime, mtime and ctime to be very close to 'Now'.
The file date is December 5, 2008 as shown on the OS
ll myfile.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 fran users 16 2008-12-05 22:15 myfile.txt
Any suggestions on what I am missing would be greatly
appreciated.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] GTK Pascal and Gnome applets
Is it possible to write Gnome Applets using GTK on Pascal? Do somebody know about this? _ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
Dear All , In relation to programming language to be used to program an operating sytem , the Burroughs Corporation is a very good example . ( I am NOT saying that porting Linux to Free Pascal is a good idea . There is MINIX3 , porting Free Pascal to MINIX3 could be a very good job . For 'why' , please see ( http://www.minix3.org/ ) ... Single-chip, small-RAM, low-power, $100 laptops for Third-World children ... ) I worked on the Burroughs systems ( B3500 since 1974 ... later , B4700 , B6700 ) . They designed the COBOL compiler , then the B2000 (?) but I am sure that B3500 was in that form : Burroughs mid-sized computers were at least 10 times faster than equivalent other main-frames on data processing jobs because COBOL statements were translated directly to machine code , i.e. , its machine codes were NOT like their contemporary main-frames . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_B2000 ... The architecture was built to support COBOL programming in the most efficient way possible ... ) Later , they designed their Algol-like language ESPOL , and then B5??? series . In the B6700 main-frame the machine language was the ESPOL , i.e. , the computer was executing ESPOL directly . During development of this series , design team did not say to upper management that ... are designing a computer that it will NOT have machine language ( assembler ) but a 'new machine' . because acceptance of a design not having a machine language was very unlikely . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCP_(Burroughs_Large_Systems) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPOL http://bitsavers.org/pdf/burroughs/B6500_6700/594_B6700_ESPOL_Jun72.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALGOL_60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWP ) Thank you very much , Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Skybuck Flying [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If everybody does a little bit it could go quite quickly. Question is: Which linux distro ? ;) Well, you said porting linux. Linux to be only references the Kernel only. That is the real OS part. All the other stuff like X11, and 1000's of utilities and libraries are 3rd party stuff. Having a Linux system without a GUI is just as much a Linux system, as one with a GUI. So you first need to decide what you want to port? The kernel only, or a whole distro? The latter is absurd, as it will take a lifetime to complete, plus - what's the point? As for a OS that can boot a computer, implement a basic filesystem and copy/rename files is doable. I had friends that had to write such a simple OS as a end-of-year project in there studies. I guess you can take a peak at the Linux code to accomplish that, but again, what's the point. Other that being able to say yes it can be done with Free Pascal as well. Maybe you have more free time available than I do. :-) Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want to do some large work to increase the use of FPC I would recommend creating a Window Manager instead, probably with fpgui. How far did you guys get with the 'fpwm' project? Did it actually run at some point. I see the last code changes was 2 years ago. Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, Linux is good as it is now and Pascal isn't the best option to create an operating system. Other than Object Pascal not being as popular/mainstream as C... is there any technical limitations in the language and the reason you say it's not a good choice? Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be, possible ?
Guillermo Mart?nez Jim?nez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree. C is better for write operating systems *by definition*: C was created to write UNIX, Pascal was created to learn good programming techniques. C is low/mid-level language, Pascal is high-level (and Object Pascal is even higher): OS are the lowest software level. This was true in the 70's. Then Pascal wasn't modular (C wasn't but hacked it in header files, and still does), it simply wasn't adapted for programming of that kind yet. And C was optimized for being similar to the machine code of the CPU's of the time. And it still is. Today, the biggest difference between the languages are missing high-level features in C (which Pascal has had for decades), and that the syntax of C has a big range of obvious flaws. Neither of these make C a better language for anything. The advantage to be able to mix operations on the same line, like the ++ operator, had importance for performance back then, before pipelining and caches. Today, it simply doesn't matter. IMHO, C was simply the *first* language replacing assembly language on the OS level. And the first often gets chosen as standard, the only way. Now, to return to the OS part: How could Linus Torvalds write the core of Linux in rather short time, single-handed, if it is such a huge task just to port it? The window manager part is what I find really interesting. If Gnome is language-locked, there are two ways to change that: Either convince the Gnome team to open it up in our directions (just a matter of interfaces to them) or to make an FPC branch of Gnome (assuming that Gnome is under appropriate licenses), where appropriate parts are ported to FPC. I would call it Jedi Gnome, analogous to Jedi-SDL. Now, is there anyone more than me visualizing Yoda with a lightsabre as logotype? :-) /Ingemar ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
