On 2008-02-08, Evgeny Kurbatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is impossible to avoid the mid-level because in the near
> future there will be a lot of platforms which are differs on a hardware
> level (e.g. mobiles, desktops, computing nets, brain chips etc), and a
> lot of low-level OSes on it. We need a kind of an API-buffer like .NET
> for portability of a software. So the point of application of kernel
> development will shift to development of a kernel of that API-buffer, IMHO.
Low-level doesn't mean completely unportable/hardware-level. Just very low
abstraction level, just like C. High level by contrast is very high
abstraction level.
hardware or ultra-low-level
= asm / port-poking / "use the source"
low-level = C / exokernel / decent config files
mid-level = C++ / linux megamonolith / wimpshit
high-level = Haskell
/ high level services on top
of a low-level or mid-level kernel ... or Haskell :)
/ just doing the right thing
Or something like that. Obviously the level depends on the
perspective.
--
Tuomo
