Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Porting linux to pascal, would it be possible ?
In our previous episode, Guillermo Mart?nez Jim?nez said: 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 don't see that at all. Sure original Pascal started and ended a bit higher. But this is a Free Pascal list, and Free Pascal and Delphi can get down and dirty too. There sure isn't much in C that FPC can not do. And the few bits that miss (if any) would probably be added soon when major OS development would start. I think it is more a matter of FPC being geared towards apps development as a compiler than a matter of language. 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. Well, it is a pity that there is so much routine discussion in this thread that seems to boil down to a dogmatic kneejerk C is better, C has always been better, because Linux/Unix was programmed in it, and so little real funded argumentation why this is really the case. ___ 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
[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] 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] 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
